Debate: Who should be allowed guns?

Aquw VettelS 776 · **Posted:** May 23rd, 2010, 3:53 pm

I've been wondering, what are you views on guns in society?

I believe that in the US, you need a licence to own a gun, but it's fairly easy to get one, and all the police are armed.
In the UK, licencing is very tightly controlled and getting one requires signing piles of legal papers. Our police aren't armed, but we do have special armed units when needed.

So what do you think? Do you agree with the US somewhat relaxed approach to firearms, or the comparatively strict UK policy? Or somewhere in between, or even either side?

Personally, I'd go stricter than what we have in the UK currently. I'd ban all public ownership of guns, no matter why people want them. The police wouldn't be armed, but of course there'd be armed units for "special occasions".

Spoiler for Previous debates and discussions:

Adbot · **Posted:** May 23rd, 2010, 3:53 pm

Holyhelltv · **Posted:** May 23rd, 2010, 3:59 pm

I think only police should have guns. because if everyone had a gun, then this world would be one big massive kill fest.

ryan1 · **Posted:** May 23rd, 2010, 5:50 pm

Meh.. It's a complicated issue.
On the one hand, there is always the argument for self defense. You might say that no one will have guns, so why would you need one to defend yourself? But there are people who will get their hands on guns regardless of whether it is illegal to own them. I don't want to wake up to an armed robber in my house and have no protection.
On the other hand, many unnecessary deaths can be prevented by banning guns for civilians. People do stupid things all the time. It would be a lot harder to kill someone in a fit of rage without a gun.
There are arguments to be made on both sides, but I think in the end I'm in favor of the US's more lenient policies.

Evelyn · **Posted:** May 23rd, 2010, 7:36 pm

Background checks + license + age limit.

trekkie · **Posted:** May 23rd, 2010, 7:43 pm

the problem with trying to have more gun control in the US is that there's so many guns on the black market that these laws really hurt the citizens. and it is in our law that everybody is allowed to have a gun.

letting people own guns is okay, but NOT assault rifles. it's not hard for people to get an m16. or even an AK for "hunting"
yeah you need to do a background check for people but then remember virgina tech. the boy got a gun legally and cleared the background check. then he went on a killing spree.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 12:09 am

Military and special police units. Nobody has a need to own a gun but those types and perhaps farmers.

I'd explain why but we've done this and it'll turn out the same. Someone will come in crying over there imaginary freedom someone else will say theres to many guns (trekkie did that booya) and everybody will ignore the fact many countries have guns banned and it can and has worked in the past.

I think i covered all bases.

Adbot · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 12:09 am

Brad · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 3:16 am

American logic regarding guns seems to run thus: "If everyone has a gun then nobody is at risk because everyone can protect themselves!" What idiocy.

Just look at any story on Digg that breaks about someone defending themselves with a gun against an attacker and all the 2nd Amendment lovers rave about how necessary it is. But when stories appear about some mentally troubled person getting a gun, shooting up a mall and killing 10 people, they've nothing to say. Allowing easy access to guns is a fallacy in the extreme, especially as society has steadily spiraled downwards to more social instability and violence. I think people should be allowed rifles for hunting and similar pursuits, but it should be much more tightly regulated and restricted. Your average person in the street has no real need for a gun, and allowing them to have one is only going to cause problems.

Oh and that brings me on to another related thing; Don't cling to your constitution like it's the be all and end all of every decision. It contains many good and relevant points, yes, but it was written over 200 years ago and not everything in it should be treated as gospel. It's not all still relevant and practical in todays, very much changed, society.

Shane · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 4:09 am

In urban areas there's no need for everyone to be able to own one, should be just limited to the police. I do think though that hunters and farmers should have the right to own them. Hunters for obvious reasons. Farmers to dispose of annoying creatures wreaking havoc on their land.

Warren · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 7:37 am

I need a gun as I am assaulted on a daily basis.

Quote:

The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to "weapon(s)" for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.

You have the right to wage war?? what if the war is against your own people wouldn't you be considered terrorists? l o l militias can be used for terrorism. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERRORISM.

I voted "Regular police don't have guns- only special armed units" But any "armed unit" should be severely punished for using them like when you are storming a house and there is a 7 year old child who is obviously startled by all the disorder they bring you don't **** shoot and kill them and then not be punished at all because all procedures were followed. I heard it was procedure to kill any dogs when you raid a house too?? Yeah you shouldn't be allowed to use your weapon unless you are about to die.
People can have bb guns
Hunters can use bow and arrow
But farmers can have something to protect their farm

Aquw VettelS 776 · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 1:06 pm

As far as I'm concerned, the argument of self-defence simply doesn't wash. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to sleep with a handgun under my pillow "just in case". But this is the real world, and you can't have everything you want. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under US law, you have the right to use any means "necessary" to rid someone off your property. Is it just me, or does that not seem a little...prehistoric. The fact is, as much as we'd like to think it, we're not free. We can't do as we please, and whether we like it or not, ultimately we have to do as we're told. And frankly this cavalier attitude that "we should be able to shoot whoever we jolly well choose" is ludicrous. Although when your "constitution" on based on the views from hundreds of years ago, who can blame these people? The US is the most affluent, and in many cases, developed, countries in the World, yet it still bases law and order on medieval beliefs. It's utterly ridiculous, and if it weren't such a serious breach of even the basic concepts of a developed society, it would be laughable. Surely I'm not the only one who feels somewhat uneasy about the guy next door with the shotgun? Civilians do not need guns, for any reason. If it's not for shooting dead intruders, people will argue for leisure or "pest control" purposes. I would not on principle allow ownership of firearms or any kind, no matter what the intentions. I'm not a pacifist; I just see no need for guns in a civilised society, never mind the public safety concerns.

Earth · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 4:26 pm

If I remember correctly, there were several studies on the effects of gun control...
When the policies were very strict, the crime rate were very high but when the policies were more lenient, the crime rates plummeted

I say you have to be a certain age, no criminal record and you have to have a license. If you do commit a crime, you have to wait x years until you can have a gun again, depending on the severity of the crime.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

I believe as long as you don't have a criminal record, you should be able to get a gun

Rune Beast0 · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 5:51 pm

I support most citizens being unable to have ak-47s or other weapons that aren't needed. Everyone who qualifies under current laws should be permitted to get hunting rifles and whatnot. Not even farmers need more than that.

However, I do disagree with a lot in this thread in that I believe certain people should be allowed to have weapons outside of hunting rifles. I'm a gun enthusiast, and I really do enjoy being able to use different weaponry. To be able to use other weapons, a citizen would have to go through extensive background checks etc., and the guns could only be used in certified areas.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Thought I already posted, but I guess not. Anyways, to put it short, I think anyone should be able to get a gun unless they have a criminal history that would not allow it by society's standards. I suppose a license would be necessary, but beyond that, I don't think it should be a major hassle to get a gun. If you look at US History, the 2nd amendment is all about this. If you make it harder and harder for people to get guns to the point of absurdity, those people have no way of defending themselves or their rights. What can I person do otherwise? The 2nd amendment allowed for people to have guns and keep them in case of need. I could be more long winded, but that's the jist of what I'm saying. Yes, people should be allowed to have guns, but regulation shouldn't be tight and those who can't get them should not be getting them because of a criminal history.

Iron Maiden · **Posted:** May 24th, 2010, 8:17 pm

I'm totally against guns and every weapons. I don't need any weapon. Like Batman and The Mentalist. If I was a cop, (like I wanted to be in the past before I decided to become a criminologist) I wouldn't even want to have a gun.

No ones should be allowed to guns except Policemen for their security.