Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[BiscuitTrouser]

I still consider this an unnecessary restriction, since you shouldn't NEED a reason to own a firearm. It is on the same level as prescription medicine like Adderall in the US, or medical marijuana, where many doctors will sign off for anyone that vaguely fits one of the required symptoms, yet the standard citizen would not be able to purchase them without large (and as you said, bureaucratic) loopholes.

I'm only saying that guns in the UK are on the same level as prescription medicine, which the standard citizen cannot own "without reason," even if it's an arbitrarily small reason ("in a gun club," or "I'm having trouble focusing"/"my head hurts").

Joining a gun club isnt a loop hole. Its what youre meant to do much like the driving test. Ill concede its bureaucratic but to be honest control on who owns guns is good. You have it to. Ex cons cannot buy assault rifles one day out of prison. Bureaucracy is a little neccessary.

Guns are an equalizer

I agree that UK's self defence laws are the primary problem, but the introduction of guns in the home could (probably) further make criminals far less likely to invade homes while the homeowners are there, since they not only have to worry about the rare person that could take them in a knife/fist fight, but possibly ANY citizen whose home they are invading barring, say, quadriplegics. At the very least, you can see the effect that having a citizenry afraid of defending themselves has had.

This is not to say that everyone should own firearms. Of course not.

Ill concede guns are an equalizer, but the reasons we shouldnt get them here in England trump that to be totally honest.

Im afraid i cant when it comes to guns. When a person who is arguing FOR gun control cites England or Europe that person has committed a fallacy. You need to call them out on it. Britain is an Island. It is small. It has a wildly different gun culture. Controlling what comes into our country is relatively easy compared to you in the US. There are a LOT of differences. Dont sink to the level of fallacy that your opponent does. Those people are wrong. You cant force guns into our culture because we dont want them here. We are a democracy and the majority of our people do not want guns. Thats reason enough alone to keep them illegal because we the people. Do. Not. Want. Them. The fact you DO want guns as a majority is reason enough in a democracy to keep them. Shoe horning guns into our country when we just dont want them is silly. Most of us wont buy them and even if we do it will be because we are DAMN scared of all the guns we have in the country now.

We have a similar problem (crime) and two very different playing fields to fix it in. Our self defence laws are definitely a problem and we are fixing them, our prime minister immediately called them out as stupid. Your guns might be a problem too but there isnt a legitimate way to fix it to be honest that has anything to do with banning them. That isnt a solution to stopping gun massacres in YOUR nation. It definitely helped in OUR nation but to try and stamp solutions from one country to another just doesnt work.

 

[Raytan941]

It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...

You just gotta laugh at a statement like this, sad part is I see it all the time coming from these anti-gun folks. No one ever suggested that people should be allowed to own nukes or daisy cutters or surface to air missiles. Personally I don't think any person or government for that matter should be allowed to own nukes but it's far to late to put that genie back in the bottle. But anyway lets just say (for the lolz) that it was legal for anyone to buy a nuke, just who the hell is gonna be buying them? The only people that could afford them would be the ultra rich and pretty much as a rule the ultra rich don't go murder happy. Anyway back to reality, the founders believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military because at the time when the need arose the people would join with the standing army (bringing along their own weapons in the process) to help combat a common enemy.

It was not at all uncommon in those days for citizens to own cannon's, mortars, crude hand grenades and even fully equipped naval vessels. And I would agree that that ideal does not fully translate to modern terms. I do however believe that if someone wants to own a tank or a fighter jet or a 55mm howitzer and they have the money to buy it and the know how to operate it in a safe manner they should be allowed too. And there are people in the US who do own things like that, I admit that I don't know the requirements and restrictions on owning things like that because I have never looked into it because they are waaaay out of my budget I can imagine however the requirements, restrictions and fee's are pretty steep. I believe they are also limited to items made before a certain time, for instance I haven't seen anyone that owns a modern tank but I have seen a number of people that own tanks built prior to 1960. And that's a shame I think if someone wants to own a Abrams or a Striker and they can find a company or a government willing to sell them one I am all for it. What I do believe need's regulation is already heavily regulated for obvious reasons and that's things like explosives, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Best of luck in dealing with the professional soldiers

Those soldiers are gun owners, would be affected by flagrant violations of the Constitution. Military/LE are some of the strongest supporters of gun rights because they use them every day, unlike the vast majority of people who want them outlawed, who are completely ignorant and naive. They are as fed up with government as civilians.

it's called an AMENDMENT for a reason, almost as if it's not meant to be permanent or anything. I mean we got rid of the 14th amendment.

We got rid of Citizenship Rights? You're probably talking about 18 which 21 repealed. Want to know what that repealed amendment was? It BANNED something. The scary part is that it actually passed.

Liquor was banned. Citizens turned criminals and criminals turned kings.
Many drugs are banned. The same thing has happened.
Do you really want to try this with guns?

this is ignoring the fact that the second amendment was talking about muskets for crying out loud.

..AR-15 can hold dozens of rounds, fire at a rate of 60 rpm, and reload in a matter of seconds.

A repeating rifle with a magazine predates the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nearly a decade. Facts aside, you're repeating a subjective point and invoking your own judgment to conclude what the framers intent was. It says "arms", it does not say "until arms can shoot fast enough to commit mass murder".

You don't get to make up the rules as you go, and if you believe rights just sit there collecting rust until we write a new Constitution, you better be careful because the next Constitution will guarantee half as much freedom as the current one does, 2700 pages long and would put any software agreement/patent law in history to shame. It will not empower the people and set up a government, it will be a list of rules we have to obey, written by them.

Welp here we go,
Firstly I was poking fun of the notion of a violent seizure of guns by the Government, and looking back at my writing I feel as if I did not make that clear enough. All of what you said is true, and most people who believe that they will have to fight off soldiers one day are delusional.
Secondly the 14th amendment, once again my bad meant to say we adopted the 14th amendment.
Ok moving on to the meat of the argument. Do I want to ban guns? No, I want to regulate them, much in the same way we cracked down on alcoholism. We enacted much stricter blood achohol limits, increased the drinking age, ramped up enforcement and penalty, charged bartenders who serve drunks, and launched massive public awareness campaigns. And we did all that because, who knows it may actually improve the situation? And guess what happened, in 1982 26,173 fatalities in the U.S were related to alcohol. As of 2009, the death toll stands at 12,744, a more than 50% reduction. Drunk driving on the other hand has fallen by two thirds since 1973.
Moral of the story, banning is idiotic, but regulation can work.
Finally in regards to repeaters no. You are factually wrong my man, the first ever repeater, the Jennings magazine rifle was first introduced in 1849. The amendments on the other hand were ratified in 1791, a full 58 years beforehand. The only real change in firearms during the time was the limited introduction of rifling.

 

[Vegosiux]

It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...

You just gotta laugh at a statement like this, sad part is I see it all the time coming from these anti-gun folks.

Well, instead of grabbing the first chance to ridicule someone on the internet, you could have also read the rest of my post, which I am pretty certain you did not do.

My point was that the amendment is both ambiguously worded for the context of modern times, and in its very nature not something permanent and absolute. So "you just gotta laugh at" how it's assumed to be sacrosanct by "these pro-gun folks" if I use your terminology.

 

[darlarosa]

Go about my everyday life.

I hardly think anyones going to start shooting up the streets because some people don't have guns. To be forward...I'm far more proficient with a knife than a gun...and I'd probably enjoy killing someone with some artistry to it instead of a gun :/ That said I'm also kind of a pacifist.

 

[Kopikatsu]

It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...

You just gotta laugh at a statement like this, sad part is I see it all the time coming from these anti-gun folks.

Well, instead of grabbing the first chance to ridicule someone on the internet, you could have also read the rest of my post, which I am pretty certain you did not do.

My point was that the amendment is both ambiguously worded for the context of modern times, and in its very nature not something permanent and absolute. So "you just gotta laugh at" how it's assumed to be sacrosanct by "these pro-gun folks" if I use your terminology.

Actually, the Bill of Rights is meant to be a list of unalienable rights; and the representatives absolutely refused to sign the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was created first. So those are not really ever meant to be changed, no. The non-Bill of Rights amendments are fair game though.

 

[vasudean]

I simply wouldn't give up my guns if the law stated that I couldn't keep a firearm anymore. The reason why is because firearms are already deeply embedded in our society and to take away a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and maintain a firearm would result in a sharp increase in crime. The thing is, those who don't obey the law don't care if the law states that they can't have one. If a criminal truly wants to obtain a firearm, they can get one and the law would only hurt the people who obey it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

While I do not believe that this will ever happen, if it did I would not kill someone, unless they tried to use force against me, then I would stop them with whatever force I needed. Mostly because it's against the constitution and my personal liberties to own a pistol.

I don't like that this is being passed but I also do not like school shootings, however, if guns are banned, all that will be in the news will be mass stabbings or more shootings still. People who are dedicated to cause harm or do evil will always find a way to do it, look at the prohibition, not saying alcohol is evil or bad, people still found ways to circumvent the law with ease.

Hell, makeshift pistols can be made out of a steel rod, a firing mechanism and a few items from nature to make black powder.

Never underestimate people, they will go to any lengths to get rid of what they don't like, legally and otherwise.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Joining a gun club isnt a loop hole. Its what youre meant to do much like the driving test. Ill concede its bureaucratic but to be honest control on who owns guns is good. You have it to. Ex cons cannot buy assault rifles one day out of prison. Bureaucracy is a little neccessary.

To be fair, you don't need a driver's license to own a car in the US: Just to drive it on public roads. Similarly, in some states, you're required to have a license to carry a firearm (openly or concealed) in public, but many states don't require registration for certain weapons, and they can be carried on your property openly depending on the jurisdiction. As you brought up, though, the US is absolutely huge, and not that comparable to, say, the cities of England.

Guns are an equalizer

I agree that UK's self defence laws are the primary problem, but the introduction of guns in the home could (probably) further make criminals far less likely to invade homes while the homeowners are there, since they not only have to worry about the rare person that could take them in a knife/fist fight, but possibly ANY citizen whose home they are invading barring, say, quadriplegics. At the very least, you can see the effect that having a citizenry afraid of defending themselves has had.

This is not to say that everyone should own firearms. Of course not.

Ill concede guns are an equalizer, but the reasons we shouldnt get them here in England trump that to be totally honest.

Im afraid i cant when it comes to guns. When a person who is arguing FOR gun control cites England or Europe that person has committed a fallacy. You need to call them out on it. Britain is an Island. It is small. It has a wildly different gun culture. Controlling what comes into our country is relatively easy compared to you in the US. There are a LOT of differences. Dont sink to the level of fallacy that your opponent does. Those people are wrong. You cant force guns into our culture because we dont want them here. We are a democracy and the majority of our people do not want guns. Thats reason enough alone to keep them illegal because we the people. Do. Not. Want. Them. The fact you DO want guns as a majority is reason enough in a democracy to keep them. Shoe horning guns into our country when we just dont want them is silly. Most of us wont buy them and even if we do it will be because we are DAMN scared of all the guns we have in the country now.

We have a similar problem (crime) and two very different playing fields to fix it in. Our self defence laws are definitely a problem and we are fixing them, our prime minister immediately called them out as stupid. Your guns might be a problem too but there isnt a legitimate way to fix it to be honest that has anything to do with banning them. That isnt a solution to stopping gun massacres in YOUR nation. It definitely helped in OUR nation but to try and stamp solutions from one country to another just doesnt work.

I'm...not saying that the UK should legalize firearms. I agree with your post nearly completely.

IF you want to get rid of the "criminals attacking citizens in their own home" problem, the only real option outside of better locks is to make criminals afraid of invading a home, which is the reason while-at-home robberies are so rare in the US in comparison. You concede that this issue isn't important enough to warrant allowing your citizens to be armed for self defence. That's fine. I'm not disagreeing. Different strokes for different folks. I even concede that allowing your citizens to defend themselves (with firearms) may increase crime overall in your country, despite higher (legal) gun ownership equating to lower crime in the US. I was only talking specifically about home invasions.

A side note, but as far as the US goes, if we want to reduce gun deaths, the most effective solution is to attack the cause of the large majority of firearm murders: Gangs, especially city gangs. Where do these gangs get their money from? The black market, and, in particular, prostitution and drugs. 70% of murders in Detroit in 2009 were directly related to drug trading, half of them for marijuana alone. Decriminalize these, and inner-city thugs will lose their income (and their ability to bully/rob/extort druggies). This is something that many outsiders don't understand when hearing about US gun crime: Outside of cities, gun crime is virtually irrelevant and nonexistent, despite a far higher rate of legal gun ownership.

 

[Raytan941]

Well, instead of grabbing the first chance to ridicule someone on the internet, you could have also read the rest of my post, which I am pretty certain you did not do.

It was not meant to be ridicule sorry if you took it that way I just used your line to make my point cause it was the first time I had seen it used on this thread. It's something that I see on a fairly regular basis it truthfully does make me chuckle every time I see someone say something ridicules like "Oh well you don't think there should be restriction's huh? well how about they just give everyone a nuke!" I saw Piers Morgan say something to that effect recently and I just had to lol. I know that's not what you said but it was close enough for my purpose, again not meant as ridicule it simply served my purpose.

 

[Grayjack]

I'd expect some sort of compensation. I'm not handing over my guns for free. If not, I'll just hide them.

 

[chadachada123]

Even if gun manufacturers did push that image (and they don't appear to be), isn't the fact that gun crime has been going down while gun ownership is going up...show that more gun control isn't necessary at this point?

Not at all. I'd say the fact that murder sprees happen at all is a valid reason to regulate guns. But even if there weren't murder sprees, the fact that the American violent crime statistics are so absurdly high compared to other developed countries is a valid reason as well. Just because our crime rate is coming down from an even more absurdly high level doesn't mean the crime rate isn't still absurdly high.

Now I know at this point some NRA-fan is going to reflexively jump in and try that tired old straw man argument about how you can get blugeoned to death with a loaf of stale bread so we should ban stale bread, but let's dispense with the hysteria, shall we?

In order to have a free society, people should have the right not to get gunned down by some random over-armed maniac. Guns obviously make violence far more efficient than the other tools available to the public. That in and of itself is a valid reason to increase gun regulation.

That's without getting into the fact that gun owners (in Texas) who go through the Concealed Handgun Licensing process (with a training course and written test) and purchased their firearm legally are fourteen times less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime, and seven times less likely to commit a violent crime.

That's very interesting. It makes me wonder why the NRA hasn't engaged in a nation-wide campaign to promote mandatory gun licenses as a way to reduce gun violence. Well, it would make me wonder if I didn't know just how partisan the NRA is.

This is why I have no sympathy. Sensible industries self-regulate in order to ensure they're meeting the public good and to prevent a government need for regulation. The American gun industry has fought tooth-and-nail against any regulation and now they're facing the cost. I might be more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the gun industry's pig-headed insistence that "any regulation means they're takin' away ar gurnz!!!" is costing us lives. People are dying because the gun lobby has put ideology and profit ahead of basic, sensible regulation.

The NRA doesn't represent me, nor does it represent a large minority of other gun owners. The NRA is absolutely fucking retarded, to say it nicely. Gun Owners of America does a far better job protecting the rights of Americans, and doesn't just push an agenda and give money to political candidates (or try to push blame onto video games, etc).

Regarding "right to not be shot by taking away arms from others," I disagree vehemently. Rights do not work that way. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to control others based on what they *might* do.

Beyond this, instead of trusting that a criminal won't stab or shoot me, it is far more reassuring to be able to arm and defend myself, so that *I* am in control, or at fault, over whether I live or die, and not some thug. You'd like to tell people to be defenseless pigs, ripe for the slaughter, like all of the victims of most of the mass shootings of the past 20 years.

Protip: There's a very obvious, very much common sense reason that these shootings all happened at "gun-free zones": Because their victims were guaranteed to be unarmed and without resistance. Even the Aurora shooting (Dark Knight Rises Movie Theater shooting) happened at the ONE theater in the area that forbid firearms, and was not the closest one to his apartment, either, while the other six within a twenty minute drive were those where another patron could have been armed.

Edit: Forgot the source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

As far as self-regulation, you'll note that many gun owners, like I said, denounce the NRA, just as many gamers denounce EA and Activision. The media conveniently cherry-picks who they get to represent gun owners, like inviting a loud idiot like Alex Jones into a discussion with an equally-stupid but more-charismatic Piers Morgan.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No guns to turn in over here. And I highly doubt anyone would start a friggin revolution if the government did take such measures. I mean, I love skateboarding. But if the government decided to ban those pieces of wood because they thought skateboards turned people into hooligans who beat up grandparents, I'm not all of a sudden going to turn Che on everybody's ass just to keep my skateboard. Heck, if it led to less grandparents getting the crap beat out of them then I'd feel like I did the right thing.

The significance of a skateboard to you is fun. The significance of guns to gun owners is protection of their homes and often insurance against a corrupt state.

If you view anything as the thing that maintains your rights, and that thing is also a deadly weapon, and millions of people in your country hold this same view, you can expect a revolt of some kind.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Regarding "right to not be shot by taking away arms from others," I disagree vehemently. Rights do not work that way. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to control others based on what they *might* do.

Well there is the right to life, as set out by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. is a party to.

 

[TornadoADV]

"Regulation" is double speak for "Take Away" in Capital Hill. Don't want citizens with modern handguns and rifles? Regulate their magazine size so small that they can't function or fit in the weapon they are designed for. Or make it illegal for weapons to have certain furniture to such an extreme degree that no modern weapon is made that way to any functional degree.

 

[Quazimofo]

words words words, something incorrect about rich people never going murder-happy words words words. the founders believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military because at the time when the need arose the people would join with the standing army (bringing along their own weapons in the process) to help combat a common enemy.

It was not at all uncommon in those days for citizens to own cannon's, mortars, crude hand grenades and even fully equipped naval vessels. And I would agree that that ideal does not fully translate to modern terms. I do however believe that if someone wants to own a tank or a fighter jet or a 55mm howitzer and they have the money to buy it and the know how to operate it in a safe manner they should be allowed too. And there are people in the US who do own things like that, I admit that I don't know the requirements and restrictions on owning things like that because I have never looked into it because they are waaaay out of my budget I can imagine however the requirements, restrictions and fee's are pretty steep. I believe they are also limited to items made before a certain time, for instance I haven't seen anyone that owns a modern tank but I have seen a number of people that own tanks built prior to 1960. And that's a shame I think if someone wants to own a Abrams or a Striker and they can find a company or a government willing to sell them one I am all for it. What I do believe need's regulation is already heavily regulated for obvious reasons and that's things like explosives, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

You make good points. While i do not agree with you completely (I don't even want it to be a possibility for someone to own modern, functional tanks and fighters and the associated munitions, since thats just too dangerous for someone to own), I agree that these things should be available to those who can afford them, and are responsible enough to use them safely, if at all. However, there lies the problem; most people really aren't responsible enough, or educated enough, or both. Unfortunately, its too damn easy for those who are irresponsible or downright dangerous to get such things.
That is why I say i give up my guns. If I ever even came into one, I don't trust myself to not make a mistake in the storage or usage of such a tool of destruction, and I know that eventually I will either break something, wound someone, or straight up kill someone when I had no intention to.
Im clumsy, Im uneducated in gun safety. I know precisely one person who I trust with such weapons, because his family has long standing military ties, and it is a hobby of his, but he knows how to keep himself and others safe when his guns aren't unloaded and locked up.

This is the only person I met who I believe should be allowed to own a weapon. Not just a gun, a weapon. Because he knows his shit, and he knows and understands what these things can do, and he knows how to be DAMN sure these things don't happen accidently.