Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Twi]

So, guns?

Welp. This is a tough one.
My personal opinion is that gun control should be relative to needs to use it. Basically, if criminals can acquire guns easily on the black market, it's reasonable to allow law-abiding citizens to take steps to legally arm themselves. If illegal guns are rare, however, legal guns should be too.  From what I've heard, the US does have the former situation.


Rights-wise:

People have the right to ownership, but they also have the right to life. A gun can very conceivably take someone's life, whether accidentally or intentionally, whether in self-defense or outright murder. Theoretically, life would outweigh possession, but then again, we all know about American gun culture. And also, see above.

OTher stuff:

Yeah, people always love to take the moral high ground if they can at all. Usually, they're not technically lying. They're only leaving things out.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

Until relatively recently, husbands had a right to sex with their wives throughout most (possibly all) of the West. Yet I doubt you would argue that there's anything progressive about marital rape.

[Truean]

So, the "right to own things," is probably more commonly called "property rights." There's some legitimacy there, but this notion is far from absolute and should be subject to reasonable regulation. I can't just own a nuclear power plant, despite my distaste for the public electric utility.... There are risks, in this exaggerated example, to other people and their property--and other--rights. Rather, I could own a nuclear power plant, if I could afford it, and I complied with regulations on that ownership/operation.

Nuclear powerplant, gun, car, dog, the common thread is that while I can own them all, I must take steps to avoid imposing on others, no matter what that imposition is. The responsibility scales with the potential imposition on others. I have to have my dog licensed and all the shots up to date. Insurance on a car.... Registration and a working safety on my gun, etc.... See the sliding scale implied with the different types of objects owned? Hey, even the NRA is allegedly is all about "responsible gun ownership." Do I think every idiot out there should have the power of life and death over everyone else with a point and click interface? Not really, no. There've got to be some limits on it. I think we can actually all agree that there should be some limits, unless people favor giving convicted armed robbers guns or equally silly things, but the question is where those limits should be.

Property and ownership rights. Yes. Limits on those. Yes. Otherwise my neighbor might think a surface to air missile would look great next to the hedge.

[Moghjubar]

It would look great next to the hedge.  And the statue made from loaded bazookas.  And the perfectly-safe sonic brain exploding device mounted on a water-fountain.

People have rights to art ya know.

[Luke_Prowler]

And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

Until relatively recently, husbands had a right to sex with their wives throughout most (possibly all) of the West. Yet I doubt you would argue that there's anything progressive about marital rape.

Not only is that incredibly tactless, but last I check husbands still have a right to have sex with their wives. Having a right does not mean having a blank check for destruction

[ChairmanPoo]

No they don't. They have the priviledge, as long as the other part is willing. Just as with any other relationship between consenting adults.

[Luke_Prowler]

That's not he point I'm trying to make. Right or a privilege, it's not comparable with whether guns should be illegal

[ChairmanPoo]

*shrug* regulation of guns is not comparable to a full blown gun ban, either.

[Luke_Prowler]

Since people were using examples of other countries that do have gun bans, I guess that was the impression I got

I'm FOR regulation, I just don't think strict regulation is needed

[kaijyuu]

Yeah, having a right doesn't mean there aren't situations where it can be revoked. You have the right to free speech but not harassment, for example,

As for guns, that depends if you actually consider having them to be a "right" or not. Legal rights, subject to which country you happen to live in, aren't things necessary to acknowledge to be "progressive." Inalienable rights are often ambiguous for the ones we haven't nearly universally decided upon, and I don't think having guns is considered one.




My biggest problem with gun banning/regulation is I don't like blaming enablers. The person wielding the weapon is to blame; the weapon just makes it easier. Plus, if they're going to plan and carry out the murder of someone, having a gun or a sharp pointy object isn't going to make a very big difference in the victim's chance of survival. On the other hand, I don't see much point in keeping guns either, so it's a privilege I don't care about revoking.

Thus, I land on the side of gun regulation for the same reason as any other safety regulation: there's no reason not to that I'm sympathetic to, and it can save lives.

[Descan]

Guns are enablers in crimes of passion, though the regulations of keep the ammo and gun seperate (I think some laws have them in safes, and dismantled where possible) nullify that part, I think. :>

[Leafsnail]

It's a lot easier to enforce restrictions on gun ownership than things like that though (cameras in people's houses to ensure that their gun is always unloaded?).  Not to mention that it won't be in your safe all the time and it's probably possible to open one while impassioned.

[scriver]

Since people were using examples of other countries that do have gun bans, I guess that was the impression I got

I'm FOR regulation, I just don't think strict regulation is needed

Nobody is talking about blanket gun bans. I doubt there is any country in the world where such exist.

[Truean]

Guns are enablers in crimes of passion, though the regulations of keep the ammo and gun seperate (I think some laws have them in safes, and dismantled where possible) nullify that part, I think. :>

Guns are amplifiers, not enablers of crimes of passion. Grabbing a butcher knife front the kitchen can be just as bad, arguably worse.

As an incredibly over exaggerated example:
In the US, getting rid of guns would still leave the right to bear arms.... That would leave swords? People have been killing people since long before the ancient Greeks, and it's been refined to a hell of an art.

Then of course you add to that our greater ability to work steel these days, with our ever more imaginative desire to show off phallic objects (swords have always been seen as such) and shit goes bad quick. And though it's an exaggeration the question itself isn't nuts: "If they ban guns, can we use swords?"

Back to some sort of point:
In the end, the fact of the matter is, human beings have been killing and maiming each other since the dawn of time. We haven't been able to stop murders at any point in our history and just getting rid of guns (a relatively new development in the entirety of human history) isn't gonna stop that. Honestly.

[kaijyuu]

Guns are more lethal than swords or knives, though. Slash and stab wounds are easier to treat than gun wounds despite being more dramatic, due to our fleshy nature. The idea of a sword having higher damage potential than a gun is entirely fictional.

Sure murders would still happen, but victims would have a higher chance of survival. Also, things like shooting sprees would be a thing of the past, as mass murders are a bit harder to do with a broadsword.



(note that all of this is ignoring the practicality of outright banning guns in the first place)