Gun Control

[Unstream]

So I had to read a Norton essay today by Molly Ivins called Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns. And so, browsing the TDN debate forum, I realized that gun control was never actually discussed here on TDN :O.

 

So TDN, what's your opinion on Gun Control?

 

Let's argue from the basis of Ivins' essay. I've placed in the spoiler below so it doesn't take up a ridiculous amount of space (and I couldn't find it on the internet). Nothing has been omitted, and I'm pretty sure everything is right. Forgive me if there are any typos x_x

 

 

Guns. Everywhere guns.

 

Let me start this discussion by pointing out that I am not antigun. I'm proknife. Consider the merits of the knife.

 

In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.

 

As a civil libertarian, I, of course, support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly what it says:

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. Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.

 

I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent. How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson's heart that teenage drug dealers should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channeling?

 

There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, that is, the armed forces, including the National Guard. The reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.

 

The comparison often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly used to wreak great carnage. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven't enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven't outlawed cars yet.

 

We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults, and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.

 

In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. This is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have access to guns is a continuing disaster. Those who want guns - whether for target shooting, hunting, or potting rattlesnakes (get a hoe) - should be subject to the same restrictions placed on gun owners in England, a nation in which liberty has survived nicely without an armed populace.

 

The argument that "guns don't kill people" is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house. Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died. At least not without a good foot race first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.

 

Michael Crichton makes an interesting argument about technology in his thriller Jurassic Park. He points out that power without discipline is making this society into a wreckage. By the time someone who studies martial arts becaomes a master - literally able to kill with bare hands - that person has also undergone years of training and discipline. But any fool can pick up a gun and kill with it.

 

"A well-regulated militia" surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because a gun is literally the power to kill. For years I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about their psychosexual hang-ups - always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the NRA force us to allow this carnage to continue is just plain insane.

 

I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don't know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have the power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.

 

Ban the damn things. Ban them all.

 

You want protection? Get a dog.

 

[jesse_rocket]

I am neither pro- nor anti- guns in any deep sense, so I'm mostly going to just ramble directionlessly on the subject. I live in England, where, while handguns are banned, knife crime is an issue in more urban settings (the news puts it mostly on "black teens in gangs", but I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that). People are always going to find a way to kill each other for the most pointless reasons.

 

I do believe guns can serve a purpose, and not just for sensible "defense".

 

When my husband first moved here from America, we had some bother with some neighbours playing their music REALLY loud. Every night. Until about 5am. I'm not just talking about "oh, I can hear that baseline a bit", they live in an apartment across the street from us, and it was as if there was loud music playing in the same room as us. It was bothersome. And it wasn't even as though they hadn't realized they were being loud (my upstairs neighbour suffers from this), whenever anyone yelled at them to shut up, or went and banged on their door or...whatever, they'd just turn it up. And add some bongos to the mix. In short, they were just being butt-hats.

And my husband said, if this was America, by now someone would have turned up at their door with a gun, and threatened them a bit, and that's likely something that they would pay attention to. Especially if that person had a nice crazy glint in their eye.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting this is a literal interpretation of what anyone should do, or that it would even actually work, but it would certainly in an ideal world work as a disincentive to be so extremely antisocial if the people around you could actually DO something in retaliation. Of course, it's not an ideal world, and indeed a lot of the wrong people have guns for the wrong reasons...but as I said, I'm mainly going to ramble directionlessly. :D

 

One more point though - guns are SCARY. Having grown up in a land where guns are all-but banned, I find them mildly interesting. So on my first visit to America, I convinced my husband to take me to a shooting range, with a friend of him. Neither of us had ever fired a gun, but I wanted to try it! The guy at the desk who loaned us the gun rolled his eyes and mumbled something about "what's the country coming to?" when my husband explained he'd never done this before, but luckily we had a friend with us who knew what he was doing. But as soon as I actually held the gun, I totally chickened out, and just hung out watching them. I chickened out, because once I was holding it, unloaded, I realized that one wrong move, one fumble on my part (and I'm pretty fumbly!) and someone could lose a foot, or an eye, or...y'know. Worse. And that was pretty scary.

[CAV of Gang Green]

This man brings an interesting debate to the table.

 

I feel as though the second amendment should be upheld, but there should be extensive training that way the person is sane, sober, and knows very well what they are doing when they are holding a gun in their hands.

 

Getting a dog is nice and handy, but many apartment buildings (like mine) don't allow dogs. And in the event that those people need to defend themselves, they won't be able to because guns have been banned, and they can't have a guard dog.

 

Knives are a great alternative, and would overall be a better weapon for self-defense. But what if the robber just happens to get a gun? A knife won't do you very good. And not to mention not many people right now are good runners, considering the obesity of this country. It once again won't do very good.

 

I understand where this guy is coming from. And I am actually on the fence in this debate. Maybe my mind will be changed as the debate moves on.

 

But I got an idea: How about we use BB guns for defense? They don't really kill anyone, and they should be able to hurt a robber enough to the point that he gives up and hands himself in. Not to mention BB guns aren't very expensive.

[Unstream]

I do believe guns can serve a purpose, and not just for sensible "defense".

 

When my husband first moved here from America, we had some bother with some neighbours playing their music REALLY loud. Every night. Until about 5am. I'm not just talking about "oh, I can hear that baseline a bit", they live in an apartment across the street from us, and it was as if there was loud music playing in the same room as us. It was bothersome. And it wasn't even as though they hadn't realized they were being loud (my upstairs neighbour suffers from this), whenever anyone yelled at them to shut up, or went and banged on their door or...whatever, they'd just turn it up. And add some bongos to the mix. In short, they were just being butt-hats.

And my husband said, if this was America, by now someone would have turned up at their door with a gun, and threatened them a bit, and that's likely something that they would pay attention to. Especially if that person had a nice crazy glint in their eye.

The only problem with that is that the proper thing to do would be to call the police. I'm sure they'll take care of the situation more effectively.

Not only that, but what if that someone actually shot them all up?

 

This man brings an interesting debate to the table.

 

I feel as though the second amendment should be upheld, but there should be extensive training that way the person is sane, sober, and knows very well what they are doing when they are holding a gun in their hands.

 

Getting a dog is nice and handy, but many apartment buildings (like mine) don't allow dogs. And in the event that those people need to defend themselves, they won't be able to because guns have been banned, and they can't have a guard dog.

 

Knives are a great alternative, and would overall be a better weapon for self-defense. But what if the robber just happens to get a gun? A knife won't do you very good. And not to mention not many people right now are good runners, considering the obesity of this country. It once again won't do very good.

 

I understand where this guy is coming from. And I am actually on the fence in this debate. Maybe my mind will be changed as the debate moves on.

 

But I got an idea: How about we use BB guns for defense? They don't really kill anyone, and they should be able to hurt a robber enough to the point that he gives up and hands himself in. Not to mention BB guns aren't very expensive.

Essentially, the article argues that guns shouldn't be so readily available to anyone who wants to use one. The running part was supposed to be satirical, but basically, if guns were strictly enforced, a average robber wouldn't get their hands on a gun.

 

Liking the BB gun idea though :P

[CAV of Gang Green]

Essentially, the article argues that guns shouldn't be so readily available to anyone who wants to use one. The running part was supposed to be satirical, but basically, if guns were strictly enforced, a average robber wouldn't get their hands on a gun.

 

Liking the BB gun idea though :P

 

And he makes good points about it. And I know running was satirical; I just wanted to make fun of it.

 

I was stalking Amazon once and found a BB gun for $50. And ammunition with 10000 BB pellets (I guess you call it that) for $10. You could buy scopes and such, but that's optional. Instead of paying thousands for a .45 pistol, you can get rather good defense for just $60, and it's completely legal.

 

And if you want to give the robber a paint job while stopping him, paintball would be useful too.

[jesse_rocket]

The only problem with that is that the proper thing to do would be to call the police. I'm sure they'll take care of the situation more effectively.

Not only that, but what if that someone actually shot them all up?

 

That was the other thing that surprised my husband when he moved here, and with regards to the loud neighbours. If you call the police here and say "these people are being loud" they'll say "that's a shame, but it's not our problem, keep a log of the issue and submit it to the council and maybe they'll do something about it".

 

And indeed, it would have probably been a not-good-thing if the hypothetical person-with-a-gun had carried through with the threat. I wasn't suggesting this as a solution to the world's ills, in any way, I was illustrating the point that if you know someone has the ability to do you actual physical harm with great ease, you're less likely to go out of your way to anger them just for the lulz. :)

 

Also, yes, BB guns are in theory a fantastic idea for defense, man, the bruises I've had from being shot by one of those. But it would be just a (very short) matter of time until someone modified their BB gun to be more instantly lethal, and then we'd be back to square one. As I said, people will always find a way to kill each other.

[Awesome_Paul]

That's the difference between America and England, in England it's illegal to carry any weapon or even own major weapons. I watch rubbish late night tv so British cops programs are on, if they go in a house to search for drugs and find a massive knife/decorative samarai sword/guns etc, they will confiscate and arrest the person. So the English laws are much more strict and there to protect people.

 

America will allow people to own guns/knifes etc, because they think "You can have one to protect yourself" Heck, I even saw this company with this ad: "Buy a used truck: get a FREE Ak47" This has been up for a few weeks now. I read more into it and saw that you have to have a background check etc before you get free, but AK47 aren't protection weapons, they are killing weapons.

 

But you can't get rid of guns from anywhere, throughout the world there will be a source of weapons. Buy a Dog? How will that protect you from a knife or gun attack, burglar with a knife/gun won't think "S***, this house has a dog, my gun/knife won't work on here" Or even "use a knife" Pointless. Either way crime will continue.

 

So Picture this situation

You live alone, you wake up hearing a noise downstairs, Do you:

A- Find a Gun/BBGun and try to sneak up on him

B- Sneak to the kitchen and get a Knife

C- Stay in a Safe place with a hard object.

 

Solutions:

A- try and sneak up to the burglar with any weapon, he will either Run (YAY!) Or if they have a weapon, they will shoot and run.

B- Same as A really.

C- Correct, Element of surprise will scare any burglar especially if you surprise attack from behind.

 

So you could try and ban guns and control the output, governments say they want to, but with many countries so freely able to buy a gun, there will always be gun crime,

[CAV of Gang Green]

Heck, I even saw this company with this ad: "Buy a used truck: get a FREE Ak47" This has been up for a few weeks now. I read more into it and saw that you have to have a background check etc before you get free, but AK47 aren't protection weapons, they are killing weapons.

 

That is just sad. To bribe people with a gun that is purely for MILITARY USE just so you can buy a USED truck.

 

But you also make good points. No matter how many times we ban guns, someone will always get a hold of one.

[Quark]

I don't have much to add to this, except that living in New Jersey, USA, I've had my run in with guns a few, awful, awful times. Twice in my four years at high school, someone brought a gun to school with full intent of using it. When I was a senior, a boy from my class was shot and died outside of his house. When I was a freshman, I was sleeping over a friend's house when someone, looking for her sister after a drug deal, fired a gun outside and attempted to break down the door. (I had never been more afraid in my life, I can honestly admit.)

 

So, yes, I strongly advocate more restrictions on gun ownership. I have far more stories about guns hurting lives than saving them. I would go much further into it with facts and figures, but having just got home from a class in which I heavily debated someone, I am debated OUT. Perhaps later I'll get all fancy and MLA format with the idea.

[Unstream]

But you can't get rid of guns from anywhere, throughout the world there will be a source of weapons. Buy a Dog? How will that protect you from a knife or gun attack, burglar with a knife/gun won't think "S***, this house has a dog, my gun/knife won't work on here" Or even "use a knife" Pointless. Either way crime will continue.

 

So you could try and ban guns and control the output, governments say they want to, but with many countries so freely able to buy a gun, there will always be gun crime,

A dog doesn't help?? Have you ever played Call of Duty?!? :laughingsmiley:

 

But no, the idea is that neither the burglar nor the one being robbed would have a gun. If it's strictly enforced with harsh punishments, then it's attainable, and it's not like just the criminals would have guns. Just about nobody would.

 

And honestly, guns are used offensively more often than defensively. The idea is just to reduce violence, because it's a lot harder to knife someone than it is to shoot them.

 

And regarding burglars, there's a simple solution: lock your doors and windows. And if your neighborhood is a more shady one, buy a security system.

[Secre]

I live in England where we have far more strict gun laws than most other countries and I am perfectly happy with this.

 

I would point out that we haven't had any instances where someone has walked into a school and shot the place up.

 

I would also like to say that I feel far safer on the street knowing that I don't have a gun and neither does the majority of the population. And I feel far safer approaching the police knowing that they are not carrying weapons.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I would hate to be in a country where there is no or little gun control. I don't see it as a right to bear arms, but an extra ability for people to kill whereas without the gun they'd have shouted or hit. Likewise, suicide is far higher if there is a gun in the house. I think the population as a whole are FAR safer without having a 'right to bear arms'. Look at the gun crime rates between countries and see for yourself...

 

I don't think you need a gun to be able to protect yourself, particularly as the typical idiot doesn't know how to handle it and is likely to either hurt themselves or to gun it taken out of their hands and used against them.

 

If a burgler has a gun them I am going to hide in a corner, let them take what they want and call the police. If you try to get into a gun fight or knife fight with them you are likely to get hurt.

[hrtbrk]

Agreed with mostly everyone... England and Canada's gun laws/control/registry seem to work best. Sure, they're still some shady business but that will always happen.

 

When it gets to the point that children are bringing guns to school, I think it's time to re-evaluate the 'rules'.

[:)Doc]

When it gets to the point that children are bringing guns to school, I think it's time to re-evaluate the 'rules'.

 

 

Trust me, there's a lot worse that's happened and been brought to my school. Crack, weed, guns. We had a gang fight ast year- yeah, a GANG FIGHT. Leave it to the people out there at my school to start gangs that early and get into fights with High Schoolers. That whole day everyone was freaked. <_<

 

But I agree with the article. You need protection, get a frickin dog. You can't get a dog? Keep a small gun, but make sure the person is SANE. I've got a BB gun, and that's the only type of gun I'm gonna get unless the US turns darker.

[hrtbrk]

Well, isn't that exactly the point? haha

If a 6 year old is so well aware of guns to a) know where to get one b) know how to use it - what's it going to be like when they're in high school lol

 

I was watching The Talk the other day and they made a comment about how all schools should have metal detectors at all doors to prevent this. I found it so odd because that rarely happens here. Of course it would be hard to regulate guns that are already out there, even if they changed what is currently in place. :/

[:)Doc]

Well, isn't that exactly the point? haha

If a 6 year old is so well aware of guns to a) know where to get one b) know how to use it - what's it going to be like when they're in high school lol

 

I was watching The Talk the other day and they made a comment about how all schools should have metal detectors at all doors to prevent this. I found it so odd because that rarely happens here. Of course it would be hard to regulate guns that are already out there, even if they changed what is currently in place. :/

 

I know both.... :whistle:

 

We need those. BADLY. But of couse we won't get them. <_<

 

I bet they regulate it after WWIII. Just wach. It's coming. ;)

[Quark]

Well, isn't that exactly the point? haha

If a 6 year old is so well aware of guns to a) know where to get one b) know how to use it - what's it going to be like when they're in high school lol

 

I was watching The Talk the other day and they made a comment about how all schools should have metal detectors at all doors to prevent this. I found it so odd because that rarely happens here. Of course it would be hard to regulate guns that are already out there, even if they changed what is currently in place. :/

After all that happened at my high school, I'm surprised we didn't have metal detectors. We had plenty of cops and security guards, equipped with loaded guns, however. (The fact that they carried guns in school made me nervous, to be honest. I know that if the situation arose when they needed to use them, the students would be safe, but it's scary to think of those situations.)

Come to think of it, there are only a few cops at my college campus, but they're mostly in the parking lots giving tickets for speeding. I've never seen a cop inside a building...ever. We don't have any metal detectors there either, and no building is locked. Man, security is really lacking at Brookdale. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any violence on campus in the two semesters that I've attended. That's a good sign!

 

What's scary is that once you cross the Mason-Dixon line in the United States, guns seem to be EVERYWHERE. Up north by me, they're common, but not for sale on the side of the road like I've seen in Florida. What sort of message is that sending?

[seuzy13]

After all that happened at my high school, I'm surprised we didn't have metal detectors. We had plenty of cops and security guards, equipped with loaded guns, however. (The fact that they carried guns in school made me nervous, to be honest. I know that if the situation arose when they needed to use them, the students would be safe, but it's scary to think of those situations.)

Come to think of it, there are only a few cops at my college campus, but they're mostly in the parking lots giving tickets for speeding. I've never seen a cop inside a building...ever. We don't have any metal detectors there either, and no building is locked. Man, security is really lacking at Brookdale. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any violence on campus in the two semesters that I've attended. That's a good sign!

 

What's scary is that once you cross the Mason-Dixon line in the United States, guns seem to be EVERYWHERE. Up north by me, they're common, but not for sale on the side of the road like I've seen in Florida. What sort of message is that sending?

 

What's interesting is the global perspective on the relatively low gun control in America. I was speaking with one of my teacher's recently who is originally from Japan but has lived in Italy and England. One of my classmates asked her what she thought of America before she came here to live. The first sentence out of her mouth was roughly: "I thought, 'It's scary, because they have guns, but it's also the land of freedom.'" Is this really such a hot issue that it's the first thing people from other countries think of? America is scary, because people can have guns?

 

I probably have a different experience from most, but I have never been in a situation where a weapon was used threateningly. My family owns nothing more than a BB gun. We only got that recently, because we're having a problem with wild cats infesting our yard. Not for self defense. If anyone I know owns a gun, I am completely unaware of it. To my understanding, if you remain in good company and keep out of seemingly unsafe places at unsafe times, you shouldn't have a problem.

 

I think Southerners typically value being able to have guns more because it's a really Conservative view when you get down to it. Southerners are frequently more Conservative than Northern city-dwellers. I say this being half-Southern and having been in the South frequently, so I don't think that's an unfair generalization.

 

Strict gun control, as I see it, makes it (mostly) only possible for criminals to obtain weapons. And, no matter what the laws are, they will. Take drugs for instance. I wouldn't know where to get them, but lots of kids would have no problem getting their hands on illegal drugs. That's because drug trafficking is a full-blown industry. People will have their drugs whether there are laws against them or not. Isn't it the same way with guns? I do not profess to be well educated on this topic, so don't hesitate to tell me I'm wrong.

[Kazedo]

IMO, guns arent bad. You simply have idiots that dont know how to handle them properly and thats where the issue comes in. They are great for protection if you have a family in case of a robery or something horrible like that. However, when you put them in the hands of someone who clearly should not be allowed to hold a butter knife, let alone a gun, all sorts of complications arise. People end up getting shot, or they end up shooting themselves, or something along those lines.

[Secre]

IMO, guns arent bad. You simply have idiots that dont know how to handle them properly and thats where the issue comes in. They are great for protection if you have a family in case of a robery or something horrible like that. However, when you put them in the hands of someone who clearly should not be allowed to hold a butter knife, let alone a gun, all sorts of complications arise. People end up getting shot, or they end up shooting themselves, or something along those lines.

 

My opinion would be that most of the people who want to own a gun tend to be idiots, and the more idiots who own guns the more everyone else is at risk from them. In countries such as the UK you at least are safe in the knowledge that it is likely only to be hardened criminals who have guns, the person you meet on the street probably won't.

 

The only way to prevent the complications that arise from idiots with guns is to have far stronger gun control laws in place. Like legislation ensuring that only those who have a valid reason for having a gun can own one, and only then after strict background checks (by valid reason I mean farming and other areas where it is necessary).

 

But on top of this you need legislation about what guns are completely banned - such as fully automatic, burst fire, handguns and the more military based ones. You need strict licensing laws so that complete idiots can't easily get their hands on a firearm.

 

I see this as a set of sensible legislatons, because there is little if no reason for the average Jo to be wandering around with a gun, or for that matter owning one. In the UK we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world, and I would suggest that this is largely because of our strict gun control laws.

[Kazedo]

The 2nd Amendment (I believe its the 2nd thats 'the right to bear arms') is the problem here in the US. They cant ban guns unless they either toss that out or amend it somehow to allow them to do so. If they would do like they do in other countries and make it illegal for any average Joe to have a gun, there would be ALOT less crimes/etc. The crime rate in most countries (at least gun related) is WAY down compared to the use of guns in the US where anyone can just go get one. Police, Military, etc should be the only ones allowed to own/carry handguns and things like that. I can see being able to own one for hunting purposes, but most times those are rifles (which arent usually used in stick-ups and such. Haha).

[Viridian]

I'm no american, so my views might differ since I've actually never seen someone hold/use a gun in real life.

 

First of all, my honest opinion is that guns should not be taken lightly. They have the ability to hurt or kill a person in a way a knife would not have, they namely have the ability to shoot from far away. I hear (hypothetically) about people getting murdered over money by a gun, because the gun was perfectly legal to have. I'm highly assuming the person who got killed would not have died if this were a baseball bat or a knife, highly injured, maybe, but not dead.

 

So yeah, I am against guns for personal use. Sure, you can keep a weapon in your house to keep robbers away, but that can be done with other things too. Guns are in my opinion just too lethal to hand out to any idiot who wants them, because not everyone has a right mind or enough brains to handle them (no offence).

 

Guns: no

[Unstream]

The 2nd Amendment (I believe its the 2nd thats 'the right to bear arms') is the problem here in the US. They cant ban guns unless they either toss that out or amend it somehow to allow them to do so. If they would do like they do in other countries and make it illegal for any average Joe to have a gun, there would be ALOT less crimes/etc. The crime rate in most countries (at least gun related) is WAY down compared to the use of guns in the US where anyone can just go get one. Police, Military, etc should be the only ones allowed to own/carry handguns and things like that. I can see being able to own one for hunting purposes, but most times those are rifles (which arent usually used in stick-ups and such. Haha).

The thing is though, it depends on how you interpret the 2nd amendment. Personally, I think you have to be part of an organized militia to own a gun, because the first clause of it is "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free country..."

 

Basically, you can think of it this way. What are guns for? They're for killing. There really isn't anything else you can do with a gun.

[CAV of Gang Green]

And if your neighborhood is a more shady one, buy a security system.

 

I always wondered that. If you have the thousands of dollars to get a gun, then that means you have much more than enough for a security system, which is a lot more effective.

[Quark]

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it was written in a different time when most of the country was wilderness. Hunting was common place and there was a need to defend either your property or farm animals from foxes, bears, etc. Being as I live a short jaunt away from various major cities (including Camden, NJ, one of the poverty stricken cities with a horrifyingly high murder rate) I doubt that either me or most city-dwellers would ever find a need for a gun.

 

I would also like to point out that death by firearms is the most common form of suicide. It's quick, it's often fatal on the first shot (and if not fatal, it may leave you disfigured) and that's what makes it a problem. There's no time for intervention, second thoughts or calling a suicide hotline. Suicide by firearms outnumbers homicide, and so I think it's important to look at that as a main issue concerning gun control.

[jubinator]

The 2nd Amendment (I believe its the 2nd thats 'the right to bear arms') is the problem here in the US. They cant ban guns unless they either toss that out or amend it somehow to allow them to do so. If they would do like they do in other countries and make it illegal for any average Joe to have a gun, there would be ALOT less crimes/etc. The crime rate in most countries (at least gun related) is WAY down compared to the use of guns in the US where anyone can just go get one. Police, Military, etc should be the only ones allowed to own/carry handguns and things like that. I can see being able to own one for hunting purposes, but most times those are rifles (which arent usually used in stick-ups and such. Haha).

 

 

The second amendment is there to prevent a situation in which the police and military are the only ones allowed to have guns. In that situation, if a president decides to take complete and total control of our nation, who is going to stop him/her? Anyone who tries to stand up to authority would just get shot. The only way for those in charge and those of us being "protected" to be on equal ground is to allow people to protect themselves (and not just from criminals).