Introduction Edit

Does the right to bear arms still apply? What types of activities should be legal in respect to guns? What types of guns should be allowed? I just created this article to stir up some discussions. Please edit it and post your thoughts. Grandeandy 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro Private Gun Ownership Edit

  • The Bill of Rights are specifically rights given to the people to prevent a tyrannical government.
Countpoint - Actually the 2nd Amendment was intended to eliminate a standing army. The Swiss currently have a program where every able bodied man between 18 and 45 has a gun in their closet, and everyone is trained to use their weapon. When the town alarm sounds, every many in the town is standing on their porch ready to defend their country. That's why Hitler never invaded Switzerland. He didn't dare. This was the dream of Jefferson and Madison. Chadlupkes 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The language of the Bill of Rights is no different in the second ammendment than it is in the first. "...the right of the people..." means exactly that.
  • The local police are not capable, nor required (according to the Supreme Court), to protect individuals. They can only enforce laws after they've been broken. The only one who can protect each and every citizen is themselves.
Counterpoint - Owning a gun is not the only, and may not be the best way for each citizen to protect themselves. Ensuring that their own behaviour is civilized, courteous, even gracious, and that society and it's institutions encourage civilized, courteous and gracious behaviour in all it's members would be another approach.
Ensuring that our own behavior is civilized, courteous, and gracious, does nothing to protect me from the gangs down the road, nor does it protect my family from the rapist in the park, I fully support, and think that others should, behaving in such kind manner as you described, but as I said this doesn't protect us from the people that wish to attack us, weapons, including guns, however do help protect us, they provide us a means to protect ourselves from those attackers. --Yoda133113 02:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • More deaths are caused by automobiles, doctors, and drugs than firearms.
Countpoint - This is completely irrelevent. It hardly becomes relevent even when you point out that deaths from automobiles, doctors and drugs are nearly always accidental and are not part of the intended purpose of these things compared with deaths from firearms which are often on purpose and are part of the intended purpose for which guns are designed.
True, these deaths are almost always accidental, but they are still deaths, many people, many times, have said we should outlaw guns because of the accidental deaths that occur from their ownership and use. That said, this particular argument is pretty bad, doctors, autos, and drugs have nothing to do with guns, and to use this as a real argument is a farce, however some people do think this, so it should probably stay. --Yoda133113 02:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Restrictions on ownership only affect those who follow the law. It is illegal to own a firearm in Washington D.C. yet it is still has the highest murder rate in the world per capita.
Counterpoint - Restrictions on gun ownership would encourage, nay require, that law abiding people and society in general find better ways to reduce crime.
Yet, these restrictions haven't worked in the area mentioned above. In addition other ways to reduce crime should be sought, new methods to stop and prevent crime are found often, and we should use as many reasonable methods as possible to reduce crime, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of the citizens, unless the citizens are willing to give up such rights. Having the right to bear arms is an effective and proven method of reducing crime, that doesn't interefere with the rights of others. --Yoda133113 02:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All members of the armed services are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution against "...all enemies, foreign and domestic". It is not likely that members of the military would gun down their own families in a revolution against a tyrannical government, instead of joining their friends and families against tyranny.
Counterpoint - Funny, we don't see all you pro-gun activists doing anything about the current tyranny.
In addition to the fact that some of us don't see this as tyranny, to use the word tyranny to describe the actions of our current leaders (even if you do disagree with many of their actions, as I do) weakens the word greatly, and does a great disservice to the people that have actually had to live under a tyrannical rule. Our current rule will only be a tyranny if when the populace and the laws of the nation say to step down from the power they were given, they refuse and keep it by force.--Yoda133113 02:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Against Gun Ownership Edit

  • Firearms are dangerous tools, and used improperly cause the deaths of thousands each year.
  • Guns may not be useful in protecting against a tyrannical government armed with tanks, aircraft etc.
  • Making guns freely available [unfair choice of words] makes it even easier for criminals to obtain them.

Restricted Gun Ownership Edit

  • Firearms have a sole purpose of killing (even in sport, it is practice killing). A child cannot as easily gain access to, and utilize a car to murder someone, or themselves, by intent or accident, whereas a firearm can easily be used accidently or with intent to harm unless proper safety precautions have been taken. Training in those safety precautions ensures that the owner knows how to safely secure their weapon.
  • To prevent criminals from obtaining a firearm legally, a national database of convicted felons should be made available to all gun shops. An immediate check (instead of a "waiting period") should be required.
  • Proper safety training should be required to purchase a firearm, with the issuances of something similar to a CPR card, without requiring registration.
How do we prevent criminals from getting guns? Chadlupkes 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
See point 2.
Why should proper safety training be required to purchase a gun, this requirement is not required to buy many other dangerous items, including (but not limited to) cars, a signifigantly more dangerous item, while in the case of cars you are required to prove competence in using, to purchase it, requires no training. Besides if the government is deciding who gets to buy (and they would in a sense be deciding this if they mandated that training is required) then they are infringing on citizen's right to bear arms. That said I think a gun store owner is greatly irresponsible if he doesn't make sure that his customer is at least competent in the safety aspects of the gun. --Yoda133113 08:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
See point 1.

Facts Edit

Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law in Texas, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 32% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.08 per 100,000 in 2004.

Harvard Study "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." indicates that banning firearms is counterproductive [1]

External Links Edit

Perspectives Edit

What's your perspective?

As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Gun laws, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective may be formatted as follows:

"I am _______, and I believe _______."

What counts is what we believe. I am may be used to put your statement in context.

Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes (~~~~)
The right to bear arms is as important today, as ever. Even though we are not using them to defend our country (or to overthrow the established government like our forefathers, in the US at least), we can use them for both protection and recreation. Protection from people that are willing to attack us, such as your common thug, as well as protection from the government should we need protection from them. The Battle of Athens is a fairly modern example of where a group of people used their lawfully owned guns to defend their rights from a corrupt government. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are an effective protection from a tyrannical government.
As far as what should be allowed, I think that nearly anything should (frankly the idea of owning a howitzer is kinda humorous to me). I think that gun laws/bans/controls don't effect the law breaking minority that they are made for, and instead just make the rest of us (the majority of gun users) give up what is guaranteed to us in the Constitution (again in US only). I think that I should be allowed to own an automatic if I desire, and I think that to ban them just means that the criminal has to pay a bit more for their black-market Uzi, and I am left with my legal, but less effective, Glock-18. Given that the criminals in question are already willing to break the law (hence the term criminal), then why would someone think that they aren't willing to break a gun law.
We also, however, can use guns for recreation. By recreation, I don't mean only hunting, many people find shooting and practicing with guns to be enjoyable by itself, without the desire to hunt at all. Hunting, however, is what I think of when I think of recreation involving guns. As far as the morality of hunting, many people have different views, but I say, if you kill it, you eat it. The concept of hunting for no other reason than to kill the animal is alien to me. I have heard the argument that people don't like the taste of venison, but still want to hunt, to those people I have 2 options, option one (my recommendation) donate your kill to an organization such as Hunters for the Hungry, and help someone out while still enjoying th hunt, or just don't hunt, DON'T waste our natural resources for your enjoyment. --Yoda133113 06:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that according to Battle of Athens those in revolt also obtained guns from the National and State Armouries, i.e. properly stocked Armouries provide an alternative to private ownership when required to overthrow a corrupt government.
One, they didn't get them from a National or State Armory, they stole them from National GUARD and State GUARD armories (there are conflicting stories, some say raided, some say "borrowed keys", I'm inclined to belive that they weren't just given the keys to a fully stocked state-owned armory), this is very different, they basically stole them from the government to use against the government, but that doesn't matter that much. Two, and more important, should we have to use force against our own govenment, is it really reasonable to assume that state run armories would provide? Should the people have a problem with the government, the government would presumably lock away these armories thus disarming the revolting populace. --Yoda133113 01:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of American physicians is about 700,000.
  • Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: approx. 120,000.
  • Therefore, according to the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services statistics, accidental deaths per doctor ratio is 0.171%.
  • The number of firearm owners in America is about 80,000,000.
  • The number of accidental gun deaths per year is approx. 1,500.
  • Therefore, statistically, accidental per year gun death is 0.0000188%.

So, doctors are almost 9,100 times more dangerous than guns. (statistics on doctors added by Midian on 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Heck, this logic might not be that bad, we keep doctors because even though they kill a lot, they also save a lot, but somehow that logic never gets applied to guns, I wonder why?? (this comment is added to make you think, not as a serious comparison between doctors and guns) --Yoda133113 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, how many gun deaths are purposeful? I think that may have some leverage as well. Jfingers88 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)