Citizens with guns

Citizens with guns?




Here is an always seemingly somewhat popular topic in the U.S., and that guns. Should citizens have them, and what kinds should they have access too.

I think it is impossible, and somewhat immoral, to disarm citizens, at this day and age. But also, there is the looming dangers of bad people, who will do bad things with guns. Is the threat and danger greater than the benefits? The Cons outweighing the Pros?
As a Jedi, I strive to live in peace. Hopefully, I would never need a gun. A light saber I would carry simply because its badass, but it is also a useful tool as well as a defensive weapon (can I use “defensive weapon”? Seems like an oxymoron…). But a gun is not quit the tool a light saber is. So is it too much weapon for the common carrier?

Chime in please!

The facts are that ALL violent crime has been going down for the last decade at the least in all first world nations. That means that the risk of bad people doing bad things with guns is minimal. People who want to do harm WILL. They will find a way and there is nothing you can do to stop that. Disarming the average person just means they have no means to fight back in the event of violence. A small women cannot reasonably be expected to fend off a linebacker size male with her fists. Are there some that can? Sure no doubt. However reasonably that is not going to be common. But a gun levels that playing field really fast.

Further though it seems unlikely the need to defend ones nation or take back liberty from a tyrannical government are always possible. Those that would say that you cant beat the US government really need to tell that to the Iraqi people who have beaten back the Soviet and US governments more then once.

I have personally had my life or at least my physical well being saved twice by firearms. To say that we should disarm the people is to say that you do not own your body enough to be trusted with protecting it with the most efficient tool available. Those who are disarmed can only call for the government and hope they show up in time. And when seconds count the cops are just minutes away. Its not their fault but thats reality.

Guns are a tool. Give a man that knows nothing about carpentry a hammer and tell him to build you a house. He's gonna wind up with a broken thumb. People who buy guns should be trained to be proficient in them. But our 2nd Ammendment exists to allow us to defend ourselves from pretty criminals and a tyrannical government. Admiral Hirohito once said that "If we were to invade America, we would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." Gun ownership is our right at least, and has saved us at most.

@MadHatter

I agree. I also think at this point, it is impossible to take away guns anyways. The knowledge and materials are far too common, and you can find YouTube videos how to make them at home, using a very wide assortment of materials, far too wide to structure and govern.

i dont trust americans to vote
no way are we mature enough for deathsticks























...but im keeping MY deathstick lol

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


and from the father of modern criminology Cesare Beccaria
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

Apparently in Utah porn is a health hazard. Meanwhile babies shoot parents, brothers and sisters.Why practice perspective or common sense when you[strike] can get away without[/strike] have magic underwear?

Coming from the UK, where we have fairly strict gun controls and very few people actually have/want guns, I am against civilians having guns. Whilst it is true that bad people will always find a way to do bad things, in my opinion it should be as difficult as possible for those bad people to have access to items that can potentially be used for bad deeds. I'd also point out that countries like the U.S. do have a much higher occurrence of mass shootings and the like.

I appreciate the point Marc makes about it being difficult to disarm citizens nowadays, especially in a place like the U.S. where gun ownership is so ingrained into society, but I still think some sort of stricter gun control is needed. Whether this 'control' is a stricter application process for ownership or just better education in the dangers of guns.

I'm sure many of you have already seen it but this video came to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAfWfF4TjM

Brick wrote: I'd also point out that countries like the U.S. do have a much higher occurrence of mass shootings and the like.

Well, naturally. Just like countries with lemon orchards have a much higher occurrence of citrus fruit. Are we looking at raw numbers, or are we looking at proportions? Are there more shootings per gun in the US, or are we simply judging the base numbers?