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
Armed Citizen
Site Supporter
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Midwest Jupiter

Post #31

Post by Armed Citizen »

Heck yeah.

But I do think that it should be more strict than it is currently. And it needs to be mandated across state lines with the same requirements for all. We dun need some loon from Maine carrying when in Tennessee he couldn't even look at a rubber band gun.

If in doubt read what the founders had to say about firearms. They are for more than recreation and hunting. They are for personal defense from fellow man of the private and public variety.

Thank GOD (or whatever dude you revere) for Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Kimber, STI, Ruger, Walther, etc.........




:2gun:



P.S. Thank GOD is a phrase not a belief!
:2gun: :usa: Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington :2gun: :usa:
Image

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho

Post #32

Post by Nickman »

His Name Is John wrote: 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.
Italy and Japan were the same way and enforced even the knife prohibition as well, and crime was lower than I have seen in other places. Petty crime in Italy was a problem if you left your stuff out irresponsibly. In Japan there was virtually no crime and I left my doors unlock to my car and house on many occasions without incident. I actually had a great amount of peace in regard to crime there.Italy, not so much because if you left something out, you could be sure it was gone in the morning. It was frustrating to have to lie in bed wondering if you locked everything up. On the bright side, though, I never worried about getting mugged or any type of violent crime. One thing that was very unsettling was that a friend of mine had a burglar come into his house and went into his daughter's room and stole her tv and dvd player unawares. Now that is scary considering if the burgalar had other motives.

Should people be allowed to carry guns? I don't think so, because if it is made very difficult to get them, and the punishments are harsh enough this would be a huge deterrent. Also, you know that 99% of the people you see are probably not packing. It then becomes fists against fists.

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

Post #33

Post by sirunknown »

Nickman wrote:
His Name Is John wrote: 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.
Italy and Japan were the same way and enforced even the knife prohibition as well, and crime was lower than I have seen in other places. Petty crime in Italy was a problem if you left your stuff out irresponsibly. In Japan there was virtually no crime and I left my doors unlock to my car and house on many occasions without incident. I actually had a great amount of peace in regard to crime there.Italy, not so much because if you left something out, you could be sure it was gone in the morning. It was frustrating to have to lie in bed wondering if you locked everything up. On the bright side, though, I never worried about getting mugged or any type of violent crime. One thing that was very unsettling was that a friend of mine had a burglar come into his house and went into his daughter's room and stole her tv and dvd player unawares. Now that is scary considering if the burgalar had other motives.

Should people be allowed to carry guns? I don't think so, because if it is made very difficult to get them, and the punishments are harsh enough this would be a huge deterrent. Also, you know that 99% of the people you see are probably not packing. It then becomes fists against fists.


Should the real stats of how many times guns, actually save lives more than they take lives, would be SCARY for media to play huh ?

With things like NDAA bills, habeas corpus, indefinite holding - while never explaining what your being held for, FEMA camps, militarized police across the country, the states moving away from our nation, most evil crooked people providing our "securities", constant police abuse, police who cannot do their jobs properly, tensions, soon to be economic failures

Im a krav maga instructor and would rather not let things come down to H2H, to settle "massive" problems - coming to america VERY soon. Lots of guns owned here in the US and to know how many guns are truly out there, and you try banning guns in this country. Thats how you start a massive backlash against EVERYTHING.

I do not trust one "official" in politics, much less most cops. Cops show up after whatever crimes have been committed. Just cause something has became banned doesnt mean you cannot get them. I mean look at all "anti" laws and look how much of product is out there. Guns will be no different and create a massive black market for such. All the TRUE legit "bad" people, will have guns and lots of them. Probably being sold by most of our military or crooked government. It would be another way to make fast untraceable cash for many in surplus situations.

We started the foundation of this country on guns, we will finish our legacy with guns. There is no denial in this, unless we ban them. So that way when its time to FINALLY standup for ourselves, we can use fisticuffs against M4's and real rifles.


Let it be, our nation is bankrupt with no possible return of anything. Guns may actually end up being one of the main things that actually hold worth, once things finally fail in the country.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho

Post #34

Post by Nickman »

Hi sirunknown, where at in TN? I was born and raised in Knoxville until I was 20.
sirunknown wrote:
Should the real stats of how many times guns, actually save lives more than they take lives, would be SCARY for media to play huh ?
Im sure there are stats about armed citizens who are saved because of weapons. I am just stating experience from outside of TN. In the countries I have lived, those that have strict weapons laws have less violent crime. I am also in the military, so I understand when weapons are necessary and when they are not.
With things like NDAA bills, habeas corpus, indefinite holding - while never explaining what your being held for, FEMA camps, militarized police across the country, the states moving away from our nation, most evil crooked people providing our "securities", constant police abuse, police who cannot do their jobs properly, tensions, soon to be economic failures
Not following you.
Im a krav maga instructor and would rather not let things come down to H2H, to settle "massive" problems - coming to america VERY soon. Lots of guns owned here in the US and to know how many guns are truly out there, and you try banning guns in this country. Thats how you start a massive backlash against EVERYTHING.
I am stating what I have seen and what has worked in other countries. I grew up with weapons as a part of life. I lived next to a rifle range and everyone I knew had a weapon. There is a better way.

I do not trust one "official" in politics, much less most cops. Cops show up after whatever crimes have been committed. Just cause something has became banned doesnt mean you cannot get them. I mean look at all "anti" laws and look how much of product is out there. Guns will be no different and create a massive black market for such. All the TRUE legit "bad" people, will have guns and lots of them. Probably being sold by most of our military or crooked government. It would be another way to make fast untraceable cash for many in surplus situations.
Like I said, I have seen other countries who have strict gun laws and they are successful. Violent crime is much lower.
We started the foundation of this country on guns, we will finish our legacy with guns. There is no denial in this, unless we ban them. So that way when its time to FINALLY standup for ourselves, we can use fisticuffs against M4's and real rifles.


Let it be, our nation is bankrupt with no possible return of anything. Guns may actually end up being one of the main things that actually hold worth, once things finally fail in the country.
sounds like conspiracy to me. I would say that we started the foundation of this country on secular ideas and in a time when guns were more prevalent. Today guns are not as necessary to our daily lives. When is thenlast time you had to use one for defense?

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho

Post #35

Post by Nickman »

I think that the Conneticut elementary school shooting today is a prime example of why we need to take away guns from all, except those that are enforcers of law. 18 children and 8 adults, if that is not enough to make people realize that we need to get rid of these weapons and make them illegal. My heart is with those families.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #36

Post by otseng »

Though it might be the ideal solution to take guns away from all, it is not even remotely practical. It's akin to saying everyone should not engage in sex outside marriage to stop sexual diseases. Yes, taking away all guns would stop gun violence, but the solution also has to be practical.

What I would suggest is a ban on fully automatic and assault weapons. That would at least curb down mass shootings and not interfere much on gun owners.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho

Post #37

Post by Nickman »

otseng wrote: Though it might be the ideal solution to take guns away from all, it is not even remotely practical. It's akin to saying everyone should not engage in sex outside marriage to stop sexual diseases. Yes, taking away all guns would stop gun violence, but the solution also has to be practical.

What I would suggest is a ban on fully automatic and assault weapons. That would at least curb down mass shootings and not interfere much on gun owners.
I actually had this discussion with one of my buddies earlier today. I look at the places I have been, Japan and Italy specifically, and if they can do it I know we can. It sucks for the ones who are fond of their second amendment rights, but if it has the same effect as it does in other countries, then it is for the better.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #38

Post by otseng »

Nickman wrote: I actually had this discussion with one of my buddies earlier today. I look at the places I have been, Japan and Italy specifically, and if they can do it I know we can. It sucks for the ones who are fond of their second amendment rights, but if it has the same effect as it does in other countries, then it is for the better.
For one thing, our constitution would have to be changed. And that in itself is not likely.

And even if it was changed, I kinda doubt all gun owners would obediently line up and hand over all their guns to the government. I think a revolt would be more likely to happen than that to happen.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho

Post #39

Post by Nickman »

otseng wrote:
Nickman wrote: I actually had this discussion with one of my buddies earlier today. I look at the places I have been, Japan and Italy specifically, and if they can do it I know we can. It sucks for the ones who are fond of their second amendment rights, but if it has the same effect as it does in other countries, then it is for the better.
For one thing, our constitution would have to be changed. And that in itself is not likely.

And even if it was changed, I kinda doubt all gun owners would obediently line up and hand over all their guns to the government. I think a revolt would be more likely to happen than that to happen.
I agree with you. I do think that if everyone realized the benefit of the change then it could happen. This is very unlikely. Until then school shootings and the like will continue to happen all the time as they do now.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #40

Post by otseng »

Nickman wrote: I agree with you. I do think that if everyone realized the benefit of the change then it could happen. This is very unlikely. Until then school shootings and the like will continue to happen all the time as they do now.
I started a thread to discuss this: Dealing with mass shootings

Post Reply