<p>Against gun control.
I remember a study done by some institute or other over four years observing two small, rural towns. One in where every citizen was given a gun and another were only the police had a gun. After the alotted time, the scientists were shocked to discover that the gun-controlled town outweighed the “free to own a gun” community in crime.
If everybody knows that everybody has a gun, not a lot of people are going to be sneaking into other people’s houses in the dark of night.</p>
<p>I’m all for the psychological evaluations, Fridge. Mentally unbalanced people have a disease that makes it impossible to make completely rational decisions and consider what they’re doing if they hurt someone with a gun. Thus, guns should be kept out of their hands.</p>
<p>
But that type of scenario seems geared to a small sample size. You get one depressed crazy psycho who doesn’t care about death (because, believe it or not, death does not dissuade everyone) and you’ve just given him the ability to take the lives of many innocent people efficiently and easily.</p>
<p>but that is like the whole nuclear weapons thing. we behave only from the knowledge that our neighbors can blow us to bits. are we that primitive.
and what about the studies that say a person with a gun is most likely to hurt someone in the house than an intruder.
for a certain level of gun i think some sort of test should be done. or just limit what people can buy.</p>
<p>cira: they dont at my school either. quite unfortunate.</p>
<p>Should we be limited to certain types of guns? I see no reason why a civilian should own an AK-47.</p>
<p>Boys are pretty dumb sometimes, Panic.</p>
<p>i think so. no one can really justify their use of it.</p>
<p>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</p>
<p>sounds like we have the right to an army. back then it wasnt as well put together so people self armed.</p>
<p>and i know cira.</p>
<p>We should not limit our freedoms out of fear of a worst case scenario. Bad things happen, no matter how careful you try to be, restrictions you instill, or watchful you are, bad things will happen. It’s a fact of life, good stuff and bad stuff will happen.</p>
<p>This debate reminds me of a funny skit by “the whitest kids you know” where a bible freak tries to rationalize the need of Ak-47’s for hunting deer.</p>
<p>We all need to stop quoting studies. Actually a recent study showed that 90% of studies are wrong. (:</p>
<p>Also, with the guns they had back then, you were lucky if you could hit within six feet of your target. Also, people lived in places where bears could attack and eat them. Now we have suburbs and AK-47’s. Obviously we have to interpret it as something that makes sense for us now.</p>
<p>So Donny, how do you feel about psychological evaluations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see protecting someone’s right to live as restricting freedoms. Either we can let everyone have the right to own guns, or we can protect a small amount of people from losing their right to live.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s sad we must live in fear of a worst case scenario. But the fact is, this country is large enough that we are BOUND to hit upon many worst-case scenarios. If we loosen gun control the amount of these worst case scenarios will increase. Tightening gun control won’t prevent every bad case, but it will certainly prevent a great deal of them.</p>
<p>One of the many things that I hate about guns is that it makes the act of potentially killing a person so impersonal. Instead of physically attacking someone, it reduces that life-taking power to just the movement of a finger, the pull of a trigger. You no longer have to think, you just /do/ and it only takes a second before it’s over.</p>
<p>And I agree with what panic says about the 2nd amendment. That was a time before we had a true army and police force; people relied mostly on themselves for protection. My uncle’s house has been broken into twice. After that, he got a burglar alarm /sticker/ (not even an alarm), and no break-ins since.</p>
<p>I have no issues with gun control. The NRA can argue as much as it likes that guns make people safe, but they don’t. But I don’t believe that that necessarily make people unsafe, as long as they can be relied on to use them safely and properly. Look at Canada–more guns per household then America, but with a significantly lower murder rate.</p>
<p>a catch 22.
people cannot be allowed to run rampant with guns, fear of worst case scenarios or not. it is not too much to ask a person to have a waiting period, or significant paper filling, or even a test to see if you are unstable before we hand something deadly to you.</p>
<p>Disney, People do not have a “right” to live. There is no universal law that says you have the right to exist, and I’m not arrogant enough to say that I do. Most likely I’m causing more problems being here than if I wasn’t, but I stay alive because it brings me greater joy than if I wasn’t. We all WANT to be alive, we do not have a RIGHT to be alive. I feel most people are going to disagree, and if so, prove to me why/how we have a “right” to live.</p>
<p>Guns were created to be killing machines. That is their purpose, nothing more. And before we entrust someone with that kind of killing power, we need to make sure that person can handle it responsibly.</p>
<p>we may not have the Right to live but no one has the Right to take away my life either. and not everyone Wants to live.</p>
<p>it is illegal to give care to someone unless your license (eg. a doctor or nurse or whatever) cuz i could end up killing someone</p>
<p>i cant get a license without taking a test because driving is a dangerous activity that puts more than just my life at risk.</p>
<p>i dont think i should be able to buy an item without having been cleared to do that too.</p>
<p>You’re digging at the weakest point of my stance, mls. Okay, let me rephrase, a large majority of people want to live, with the minuscule minority not wanting to live being those who are suicidal.</p>
<p>I didn’t say someone had the right to kill you, but that sure as hell isn’t going to stop them. The concept of “rights” is flawed. We aspire to the ideals set forth by “rights,” but we are not entitled to them.</p>
<p>Denying the right to live is a pretty effective end to an abortion debate :)</p>
<p>If we don’t have a right to live, what justification is there for the “right” to own guns? /Do/ we have the right to own guns?</p>
<p>In this country, at least, all people have a right to life unless they so severely infringe upon others’ rights that the government sees fit to take that right away.</p>
<p>I believe in precautions more than restrictions. </p>
<p>Panic, you need to be more specific with statements like that. I conjured up images in my mind of a fascist state where I need permission to buy hair dye or clothes or plane tickets… Not a good plan.</p>
<p>i agree. but i would still like to minimize the chances of someone taking it upon themselves to end my life for me. frankly there isnt much i can do, i will not live in a bubble of fear. but if giving a test or making some restrictions against guns will lower those chances i just might vote for it. social contract right?</p>
<p>and so sorry cira, it looked alot clearer in my head…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I realize this is kind of a cop-out, but prove to me that people have a right to own guns. Because you open this up to a more philosophical realm, it changes the very nature of the argument.</p>
<p>I was simply making my argument in a political sense. It is MY BELIEF that it is the responsibility of the government not only to protect the “rights” of its citizens in the sense that you mean, but also to allow people the ability to live and exercise those rights without having someone else stomp all over them. Allowing guns without gun control will make it INCREDIBLY easy for people to run rampant and take away people’s lives along with all the rights those people would have exercised had they been able to live longer.</p>
<p>You can’t demand of me to prove someone’s right to live because by doing so, you’re saying that only those who can survive by chance or ability are allowed the rights that you defend. </p>
<p>By saying that “Everyone has rights,” one also argues inherently that everyone has the right to live long enough to exercise those rights (assuming they want to). Obviously, natural and unpreventable accidents will make this impossible, but we CAN prevent some of these deaths.</p>
<p>Does that answer your question?</p>