ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: sabii on February 07, 2013, 05:39:41 pm
-
Should guns be banned in America? What is your opinion?
-
Personally, I believe gun laws should definitely be banned- I dont see why they aren't already? :o
-
Well I strongly doubt EVERY type of gun will be banned from the US soon, it's gonna take ages.
First the Congress must start with banning the warfare type of guns, there is no need for public to own them, and they should be used by the army/police force.
The Second Amendment was written aggeessss ago, when only a few types of guns were present, the types that only fired 1-3 bullets each minute. You can't keep the amendment when there are so many powerful guns around, it just doesn't apply anymore.
-
Personally, I believe gun laws should definitely be banned- I dont see why they aren't already? :o
NRA.
-
Personally, I believe gun laws should definitely be banned- I dont see why they aren't already? :o
Because some americans believe that by not letting them have guns you are taking away their freedom or some flimsy excuse like that.
I agree that not all guns should be banned, people that are law enforcement, hunters or farmers or the like obvious need a gun for their job but everyone else shouldnt be allowed to have one. The mass killings that happen all the time surely show that the guns are doing so much harm.
-
I agree, but im just so confused why its taking so long for America to alter the amendments and for people to realize how important it is for bear arms to be ban especially after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which has triggered the debate. 20 adults and six children died, however this was not the first but second deadliest school shooting in US history.
I understand some people argue it is "a right to bear arms" according to the American constitution however the government has a responsibility to prevent or minimize crimes and in order to do this, banning guns is essential.
According to statistics US makes up 5% of the world’s population yet 30-50% of the world’s civilian owned guns. There are 88 guns per 100 people. Even more surprising there are 129,817 firearms dealers in American juxtaposed to 14,098 McDonalds. wow.
Also since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders in which 49/61 of the mass murders were caused by legal purchased guns in conjunction to the 10/61 which were purchased illegally.
Yet still after all these facts only half of America believes guns should be banned while the other half still argue it to be a "right" they are entitled to?
Yes, I agree. Not all guns should be banned obviously some people do require them for their job purposes but I am against normal people from public to be carrying guns on them as a 'weapon'.
-
I agree, but im just so confused why its taking so long for America to alter the amendments and for people to realize how important it is for bear arms to be ban especially after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which has triggered the debate. 20 adults and six children died, however this was not the first but second deadliest school shooting in US history.
I understand some people argue it is "a right to bear arms" according to the American constitution however the government has a responsibility to prevent or minimize crimes and in order to do this, banning guns is essential.
According to statistics US makes up 5% of the world’s population yet 30-50% of the world’s civilian owned guns. There are 88 guns per 100 people. Even more surprising there are 129,817 firearms dealers in American juxtaposed to 14,098 McDonalds. wow.
Also since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders in which 49/61 of the mass murders were caused by legal purchased guns in conjunction to the 10/61 which were purchased illegally.
Yet still after all these facts only half of America believes guns should be banned while the other half still argue it to be a "right" they are entitled to?
It's easy for us to say this, and I agree with you that America would be a much better place without guns, but we have to understand that Americans are brought up in a culture where guns are more a norm rather than an exception, and for many people getting rid of guns is anathema. Their right to have a gun is something they hold seriously dear to them, and it does block out the damning stats that say "erm guys...perhaps guns is not the greatest idea." It doesn't help that the NRA is an EXTREMELY powerful lobby.
-
Americans are obsessed with freedom. They will happily amend the constitution if it means they get more freedom (such as the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment on alcohol prohibition), but they will never repeal it if it means taking away their freedom (the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns), even if thousands die as a result of it. I'm so glad that I don't live in the USA.
-
I'm so glad that I don't live in the USA.
Why not? Solely because of gun laws?
I agree, but im just so confused why its taking so long for America to alter the amendments
Adding a new amendment to invalidate an old amendment is really not that easy...
I understand some people argue it is "a right to bear arms" according to the American constitution however the government has a responsibility to prevent or minimize crimes and in order to do this, banning guns is essential.
What makes you think that banning guns is essential for this?
-
"Americans are brought up in a culture where guns are more a norm rather than an exception"- I agree Americans are brought up in a culture where guns have become a "norm", however such culture needs to be altered when it becomes a threat. Does this "culture" of there's justify the amount of deaths that occur every year due to firearms?
-
Why not? Solely because of gun laws?
Not solely because of gun laws, also because of their religious fanaticism, the global financial crisis, their lack of socialised medicine, their school/college system, their lack of Government welfare and the amount of worldwide enemies that they have, not that any of this is particularly relevant to the discussion on gun laws...
-
Why not? Solely because of gun laws?
Adding a new amendment to invalidate an old amendment is really not that easy...
What makes you think that banning guns is essential for this?
Firstly, mass deaths have been occurring since 1900's as a direct result of the amendment which gives the Americans the right to bear arms.... its 2013 now......I think they have had a lot of time to make this amendment- I studied legal studies, it does take years to alter 1 amendment.
I think it is essential based on the fact 49/61 mass deaths that took place in US, were with legally purchased firearms- THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE THESE FIREARMS and what happened? innocent people died!
-
Firstly, mass deaths have been occurring since 1900's as a direct result of the amendment which gives the Americans the right to bear arms.... its 2013 now......I think they have had a lot of time to make this amendment- I studied legal studies, it does take years to alter 1 amendment.
I think it is essential based on the fact 49/61 mass deaths that took place in US, were with legally purchased firearms- THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE THESE FIREARMS and what happened? innocent people died!
Im sure mass deaths happen everywhere, we just dont here about it.
The around the same time the sandy hook killings occurred there was a mass killing as well in china with about the same amount of people killing.
-
Im sure mass deaths happen everywhere, we just dont here about it.
The around the same time the sandy hook killings occurred there was a mass killing as well in china with about the same amount of people killing.
Actually, you're wrong there. ZERO PEOPLE DIED in the china stabbings. Although around 25 people were stabbed, none of the injuries were fatal. That is the difference between a gun and a knife.
-
Im sure mass deaths happen everywhere, we just dont here about it.
The around the same time the sandy hook killings occurred there was a mass killing as well in china with about the same amount of people killing.
Im sure there was but in China NO ONE DIED. No country can compete with the total amount of mass deaths that have occurred in America. How many mass deaths have taken place in China?
-
Actually, you're wrong there. ZERO PEOPLE DIED in the china stabbings. Although around 25 people were stabbed, none of the injuries were fatal. That is the difference between a gun and a knife.
Sorry i was wrong, i had been told that it was a shooting. Im sorry.
But i still stand by the fact that im sure mass killings happen all the time, but we dont hear about it.
-
Sorry i was wrong, i had been told that it was a shooting. Im sorry.
But i still stand by the fact that im sure mass killings happen all the time, but we dont hear about it.
Maybe in third world countries like Somalia... Name one first world country where mass killings are not heavily publicised by the media.
-
American drones kill more innocent lives then the sandy hook incident or any other massacre the American government doesn't give a shit about a few children being shot dead they're more interested in their globalistic agendas.
They disarm the people so if they do anything fucked a revolution isn't likely.
-
Sorry I forget to mention I watch heaps on conspiracy theories.
-
Gonna say this again. The rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are extremely limited. So far, less than a handful of laws nationally have actually been found Unconstitutional.
And if Obama gets to replace one of the Conservative Five on the Court during this term, the Supreme Court would very likely reverse its judgement and not even find an individual liberty to own guns in the Second Amendment.
-
Firstly, mass deaths have been occurring since 1900's as a direct result of the amendment which gives the Americans the right to bear arms.... its 2013 now......I think they have had a lot of time to make this amendment- I studied legal studies, it does take years to alter 1 amendment.
That's not since the Sandy Hook shootings then, that's "forever". I'd also question whether or not the sociocultural environment in the US has merited a change to gun laws for that long. Additionally, what makes you think that mass deaths are a direct result of the 2nd amendment and that they couldn't happen in a society in which there was no right to bear arms?
I think it is essential based on the fact 49/61 mass deaths that took place in US, were with legally purchased firearms- THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE THESE FIREARMS and what happened? innocent people died!
See above.
-
Additionally, what makes you think that mass deaths are a direct result of the 2nd amendment and that they couldn't happen in a society in which there was no right to bear arms?
See above.
I honestly don't see how that quote supports your point of view... if anything, it does the opposite. You have just shown us evidence of how most gun murderers obtain their guns legally, so making it illegal should dramatically reduce the number of deaths.
Also, look at countries like Australia, the UK and Sweden, if the evidence which you presented to us is not enough.
-
That's not since the Sandy Hook shootings then, that's "forever". I'd also question whether or not the sociocultural environment in the US has merited a change to gun laws for that long. Additionally, what makes you think that mass deaths are a direct result of the 2nd amendment and that they couldn't happen in a society in which there was no right to bear arms?
See above.
Umm let me see.... the fact that the number of deaths that occur in America is WELL BEYOND the amount that occur in ANY OTHER COUNTRY. JUST GOOGLE IT. Why? becasue in America everyone has the right to carry a dangerous weapon on them!!!!!
-
Both of you completely ignored my point, which was that the people obtain guns legally because they can. If they require more stringent checks, do you think that gun wounds and deaths will suddenly disappear?
-
No - a much broader approach in the US would be required to eliminate their insane prevalence rates of violent crime. Setting stricter gun controls is a good first step - and one which is a lot less costly. At the very least though, a national mental health system which actually works is required. Substantially reducing poverty might take a while longer.
-
I honestly don't see how that quote supports your point of view... if anything, it does the opposite. You have just shown us evidence of how most gun murderers obtain their guns legally, so making it illegal should dramatically reduce the number of deaths.
Also, look at countries like Australia, the UK and Sweden, if the evidence which you presented to us is not enough.
Basically what Russ is saying that the extremely high numbers of deaths in the US could be due to other reasons. The only way to figure it out is by actually trialling a gun outlawing in the US. However...such a measure would be impractical at best.
-
I wasn't really saying they were due to other reasons, I was just questioning tenuous assertions
-
I see many have voted yes but i haven't seen anyone say why they think we should do so, surely, at least some of the people who voted in the poll have a more complicated answer than "they're bad"...
Several theories in political philosophy are based on the idea we have a natural right to do absolutely anything we want (absolutely). We only then start carving away at the rights people shouldn't have (that is we start out with a full set of rights and remove some of the harmful ones, rather than start out with the explicit assumption there are no natural rights and we choose what to *allow*) right.
So, take personal property for example. In some natural state, i could wander into your house and just start taking your shit or eating the food out of your fridge. Of course, that would lead to chaos and make living extremely hard, so, we take away that (eg. make it illegal). Why should we take away the right for people to own guns (not that i necessarily agree but it'll keep this thread going) ?
-
I think the US's govt needs to change. It should really stop its capitalist motivations. Seriously, if it weren't wrong and inhumane, idiots should be killed.
-
It should really stop its capitalist motivations.
Which capitalist motivation?
Also, look at countries like Australia, the UK and Sweden, if the evidence which you presented to us is not enough.
Australia has centrelink so does Sweden have an equivalent while UK has one of the highest crimes rates in the world you need to do better
Honestly in my humble opinion crime/homicide rates is related to the social benefits available in that country. Otherwise the poor have nothing to lose they have nothing so going to jail is not a big deal. The sandy hook and newton massacres were caused by drugged up insane fucks.
-
If it wasn't for the NRA's 'donations' to powerful politicians, gun control would've already been implemented.
-
If it wasn't for the NRA's 'donations' to powerful politicians, gun control would've already been implemented.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the constitution or the 83% of America who own guns
-
its up to the americans if they want to ban guns or not, states like vermont and arizona and nevada they LOVE their guns and if they did a vote no-one would vote to ban it, and same as places like tennessee, whereas new york has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, california too, the culture varies state to state too heavily to make one big federal law on it all, but i think they should vote once every 4 or 5 years and re evaluate the laws but idk if you go on some american forums or talk to people actually in america they have no problem with the gun laws in their state
theres no nra conspiracy or anything LOL they just like their guns
-
Yeah it has nothing to do with the constitution or the 83% of America who own guns
For the billionth time. The Constitution allows almost any gun control measure. The chances any legislation would be found Unconstitutional are minute - only a handful have been so far. The Federal measured pushed by Obama have all already been enacted before, whether on a State level or Federal level. None of them have been found Unconstitutional. And yes, State laws have to conform to the Bill of Rights according to the Court's interpretation of the 14th - it's called incorporation.
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/gallup-poll-obama-gun-control.jpg)
So yes, the only reason reason commonsense gun laws have not been passed is the NRA's opposition to them, which causes many lawmakers to automatically oppose them as they're more scared of losing the NRA's backing than their constituents'.
-
Soo what you're telling me is that the american government are not infringing the bill of rights or are never planning to...?
Because all this hype is about 'guns being taken away from the people' who have the 'right to bear arms'. Please help me understand.
I certainly agree with the 'common sense laws' they should already be passed.
-
The measures in the image are the ones Obama seeks to enact. The NRA opposes all the ones to do with guns (i.e. not police offers or mental health). According to Obama's plan, no guns will be taken away.
So far, the Supreme Court has only found two gun control statutes Unconstitutional on the basis of the Second Amendment. Lower courts have found maybe a handful more Unconstitutional.
From the Court's opinion in District of Columbia v. Miller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
-
Basically what Russ is saying that the extremely high numbers of deaths in the US could be due to other reasons. The only way to figure it out is by actually trialling a gun outlawing in the US. However...such a measure would be impractical at best.
A complete ban on guns would be very difficult to trial, however, gun control measures, such as the one that occurred between 1994 and 2004, would probably work.
If it wasn't for the NRA's 'donations' to powerful politicians, gun control would've already been implemented.
I agree with this. America is dominated by large corporations such as the NRA. People need to learn to think for themselves.
UK has one of the highest crimes rates in the world you need to do better
Wow, I didn't even realise this until I did a google search just then... I always thought that the UK was comparable to Australia in terms of safety, welfare and crime rates. But then again, the UK riots made me think less of them.
I think that this may be partially due to the fact that the UK is so archaic. I mean, they still have a queen and royal family living in a palace. It's like they refuse to advance any further than the medieval age, a time when crime rates were high and life expectancy was low. They need to stop obsessing over their "traditions" and "ancestry" to focus on what the future has in store for them.
edit: No offence to the UK, I'm just trying to find a reason why their crime rates are so much higher than other first world countries.
Honestly in my humble opinion crime/homicide rates is related to the social benefits available in that country. Otherwise the poor have nothing to lose they have nothing so going to jail is not a big deal. The sandy hook and newton massacres were caused by drugged up insane fucks.
I kind of agree with this as well. Whilst powerful weapons do make killing a lot easier, the ultimate cause is almost always a feeling of hopelessness and having "nothing to lose".
-
The enactment even if passed is like a toothless tiger in America unless America become tyrannical and remove the constitution no gun control will ever work unless they conspire a very big false flag then they'll scare the people and will get what they want the proof is in the history. Soooo there's is no use discussing this anymore thank you for sharing that information.
( I mean the bill no use discussing it anymore because it won't work America's culture is integrated with guns)
-
I have no idea how you concluded that from my post.
-
I have no idea how you concluded that from my post.
Sorry I should've explained myself.
1. obamas enactments only limit guns use and will increase illegal unregistered guns to become more prevalent.
2. Imagine this hypothetical "I am the crazy maniac who wanted to impersonate the joker do you think some gun ban is going to stop me from obtaining a gun or making explosives
3. People can buy others guns the cost of guns will increase due to increase in demand ( the increased penalties won't be a deterrent unless its a lengthy jail time.)
The matter here is that guns =kill but so do cigarette=kill both are common place in America and a ban on both wont work however restrictions might so... I guess I was wrong.
-
1. obamas enactments only limit guns use
True
and will increase illegal unregistered guns to become more prevalent.
Perhaps illegal guns will increase, but almost all guns used in mass-shootings have been legal. So while illegal guns may increase, overall guns will decrease.
2. Imagine this hypothetical "I am the crazy maniac who wanted to impersonate the joker do you think some gun ban is going to stop me from obtaining a gun or making explosives
No, but it will make it a fair bit more difficult. What's the point of any law if criminals are going to break it anyway? Might as well legalise everything
3. People can buy others guns the cost of guns will increase due to increase in demand ( the increased penalties won't be a deterrent unless its a lengthy jail time.)
Sure, there will be a black market for assault rifles currently in circulation. The main point of these gun law reforms is not the AWB, though, rather the increased background checks and their increased efficiency. The AWB previously worked between 1994 and 2004.
-
I guess there's got to be a solution which effectively protects society as well as avoiding restrictions to freedom(but does that solution exist is a another question)... Ill be reasonable to say at this point no one needs automatic assault rifles it's uncessecary.
To be honest I love the fact that Australia have gun restriction because I can trust the Australian government but if I lived in america and my guns were taken away I'd be pissed off. This is why I take the pro-gun side.
If America really want to get their shit-together they should have a war on poverty and help their veterans get off the streets, get proper public health care and their economy back on track (which is impossible lol).