Gun Law - Pro - Con - Why?

[bodhisattva]

I'm against it. I simply believe that if SOME people can have certain weapons, ALL people should be able to have those weapons. It's a simple view, and maybe people think its unrealistic.. But it's mine.

--

The only good argument I've ever heard FOR gun law was that we are genetically geared to answer our problems and our anger with our fists. So we pop a guy in the jaw, theres a scuffle, and usually our anger wears out before anyone is dead or maimed.

But with guns, we get pissed, and sometimes throw that first punch - which happens now to be a bullet.

After that bullet is gone, and we've won, we're often not so mad anymore - but someone is dead. This is often why killers often have remorse. They really only needed to punch itout, but with the availability of guns, they solve the problem a bit more completely than they wanted in the long run.

And it's all cause we evolve slower than our technology does.

--

However, I'm still "violently" opposed to gun law. If some people have access, I believe all people should have access.

It's Jeffersonian of me, I know. But, what can I do?

[DickHardman]

i agree, we need weapons to protect ourselves. the bad guys will always find a way to obtain a weapon or carry out their misdeeds, so by banning weapons it only puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage.

[DickHardman]

i just wanted to add, that even though i support the right to keep arms, i dont believe that everything should be available to anyone. some weapons inmop should be kept away from the public and only used by certain units of law enforcement or the military. for example, civilians in our society really have no need for keeping weapons like anti tank rockets, land mines, or 50 cal sniper rifles that are meant to pierce tank armor. i also dont think people should be able to walk in to a walmart and buy 3,000 rounds of ammo with no problems or questions asked whatsoever.

[RAB]

what unit of law enforcement should being carrying guns? Are you talking about like it is in Japan, because I think that would be a good idea too.

[Tant01]

See signature line below...

[RAB]

That's was weird to me....you say units of law enforcement. I ask that you clarify and you don't. This is a simple discussion. It's not a big deal.

Don't worried about it...i understand your statement wasn't the real point or message you wanted to get across.

[DickHardman]

That's was weird to me....you say units of law enforcement. I ask that you clarify and you don't. This is a simple discussion. It's not a big deal.

Don't worried about it...i understand your statement wasn't the real point or message you wanted to get across.

units like swat teams, DEA commandos, fbi hostage rescue teams etc.....they should be allowed certain weapons in order to meet certain demands in their line of work, like silencers for their weapons, explosives, flash grenades and things like that.

[warrior_artist]

Pro-gun.

I believe in the inherent right to self-preservation. Guns exist in the world, and in the foreseeable future of my lifetime don't appear to be vanishing from off the face of the earth. As long as Joe-Thug has a gun or can get a gun. I'll have a gun. I agree with the OP of the this thread. If anyone can have it, so should I.

I also tend to agree with the founding fathers. There really is only one check against an abusive and tyrannical government: armed and informed citizens.

As for anti-tank rockets and land mines. Those aren't guns. Not even in the gun argument (now, you might argue the right to bear arms refers to any weapon. But original intent might hinder such an argument). Also a 50 cal rifle round is not tank armor piercing in and of itself.

MA

[DickHardman]

Pro-gun.

I believe in the inherent right to self-preservation. Guns exist in the world, and in the foreseeable future of my lifetime don't appear to be vanishing from off the face of the earth. As long as Joe-Thug has a gun or can get a gun. I'll have a gun. I agree with the OP of the this thread. If anyone can have it, so should I.

I also tend to agree with the founding fathers. There really is only one check against an abusive and tyrannical government: armed and informed citizens.

As for anti-tank rockets and land mines. Those aren't guns. Not even in the gun argument (now, you might argue the right to bear arms refers to any weapon. But original intent might hinder such an argument). Also a 50 cal rifle round is not tank armor piercing in and of itself.

MA

do you think people should be allowed to buy any weapon, or any kind of gun the please? or do you think only certain kinds should be available?

[DonKey]

i just wanted to add, that even though i support the right to keep arms, i dont believe that everything should be available to anyone. some weapons inmop should be kept away from the public and only used by certain units of law enforcement or the military. for example, civilians in our society really have no need for keeping weapons like anti tank rockets, land mines, or 50 cal sniper rifles that are meant to pierce tank armor. i also dont think people should be able to walk in to a walmart and buy 3,000 rounds of ammo with no problems or questions asked whatsoever.

50 caliber rifles? Has a crime ever been committed by someone with a 50BMG?
Seriously, the damn things weigh 30-80 pounds and can't be realistically fired while standing.
They won't penetrate tank armor and the only reason that rumor got started was from the US using them to disable vehicles in the Iraq wars. This is easily accomplished by any number of other calibers out there as well.

I shoot recreationally and easily go through 3000 rounds in a year of various calibers. Why should I have to jump through hoops when I order ammunition in bulk while others can get it out the back door from other venues?

There are obviously limits to what people should have, but the firearms aren't the problem.

[DonKey]

do you think people should be allowed to buy any weapon, or any kind of gun the please? or do you think only certain kinds should be available?

The north hollywood shootout displayed the ability of criminals to obtain illegal firearms even in with the most strict gun control laws in the nation. Anything an ill meaning person could possibly do with a firearm is already illegal. What is a gun charge going to accomplish on top of murder?


some interesting history on gun control in the US

http://www.lizmichael.com/tahmasse.htm

[warrior_artist]

do you think people should be allowed to buy any weapon, or any kind of gun the please? or do you think only certain kinds should be available?

Any gun. Almost any weapon. Certain nuclear, biological, explosive, and chemical weapons shouldn't be available publicly.

But other than that. Blackpowder to machine gun should be available.

On a side note: it should be noted that just about any gun is available. There are just a great slew of hoops to jump through and the cost of the firearm. For example with the right amount of money I can go buy a class 3 m-16, full auto. It will take about two months to process the paperwork and cost nearly 16,000 dollars, but any law-abiding citizen can do it. (At least in AZ. Each state has varying gun-laws and some states are far more restrictive.)

So, in a way, people can already buy most types of weapons and suppressors. What drives the price so high is that for the civilian market no newly manufactured machine guns can be sold. They have to be pre-1986, when the civilian machine gun ban was put into effect. So what's left is what's left and it goes for a big price.

MA

[RAB]

units like swat teams, DEA commandos, fbi hostage rescue teams etc.....they should be allowed certain weapons in order to meet certain demands in their line of work, like silencers for their weapons, explosives, flash grenades and things like that.

I totally agree.

[warrior_artist]

I believe all legal resident adults who are non-felons should be allowed to have them. I don't have a problem with a reasonable fee for class III weapons, but it shouldn't be excessive.

The ability of the law-abiding public to defend themselves against criminals that don't care about the law should not be infringed.

That's a fantastic way to put it.

[bodhisattva]

I believe all legal resident adults who are non-felons should be allowed to have them. I don't have a problem with a reasonable fee for class III weapons, but it shouldn't be excessive.

The ability of the law-abiding public to defend themselves against criminals that don't care about the law should not be infringed.

I don't think felons should have guns, either.

But I really, really feel bad for the people who are imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit - and then after getting out - also can't own a gun.


But I have no good answer for that situation.