First  Prev  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
17283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
No
538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / M / Wales
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
Well I live in the UK where owning hand guns is illegal, (shotguns and deer rifles are aloud under the UK gun law as long as you have a licence) personally I don't like the idea of owning a gun I think the UK law is right on this since we don't get as many killings via guns here compared to some other countries. Self defence reasons however I still can't see a shotgun being much help to me considering I'd be dead by the time I load the gun :P.
13243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 3 days ago , edited 2 days ago
I find it hilariously interesting how the anti-gun movement likes argue about gun ownership from a moral standpoint. Ultimately, no matter how they twist their argument, the inevitably reinforce the notion that are gun-owners as criminals or potential criminals. Guilty before proven innocent, or unworthy or incapable of self responsibility.

That's the irony of the whole argument, everyone likes the concept of freedom but there's a slippery slope that must not be crossed. If you can justify people in general as unworthy of self-responsibility then imagine what else that can be applied to.

Imagine if we had opinion control. Maybe we can stop flame wars that way haha. Yeah, imagine that.
19473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / California
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
It doesn't matter if you allow it or not, criminals who use guns for the wrong reasons are gonna find ways to get guns no matter what. So stopping regular law abiding citizens from owning guns for their own protection is just stupid.

If I want to own a gun I should be allowed to own a gun, which is why I do. Also plenty of people in my family do as well. We aren't doing any harm with them you know why? Because it isn't a gun at fault for bad things happening with them it's the bad people who choose to do bad things with them at fault.

And those bad people will do bad things regardless of whether it's legal or illegal to own one.
7517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2 days ago , edited 2 days ago

Zatheko wrote:

It doesn't matter if you allow it or not, criminals who use guns for the wrong reasons are gonna find ways to get guns no matter what. So stopping regular law abiding citizens from owning guns for their own protection is just stupid.

If I want to own a gun I should be allowed to own a gun, which is why I do. Also plenty of people in my family do as well. We aren't doing any harm with them you know why? Because it isn't a gun at fault for bad things happening with them it's the bad people who choose to do bad things with them at fault.

And those bad people will do bad things regardless of whether it's legal or illegal to own one.


Once again using that logic why cant I own chemical bombs?
19473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2 days ago
Because chemical bombs aren't something a sane person can use to defend themselves?

You say using "that logic" but comparing a gun to chemical bombs is even worse.

7517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2 days ago

Zatheko wrote:

Because chemical bombs aren't something a sane person can use to defend themselves?

You say using "that logic" but comparing a gun to chemical bombs is even worse.



Yes but the logic you were using was the gun doesn't kill the person does, this also applies to a chemical bomb.
5315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 2 days ago

MarkyD73 wrote:


Zatheko wrote:

Because chemical bombs aren't something a sane person can use to defend themselves?

You say using "that logic" but comparing a gun to chemical bombs is even worse.



Yes but the logic you were using was the gun doesn't kill the person does, this also applies to a chemical bomb.


Lets use some common sense here. A chemical bomb is not a personal self defense weapon, neither if a firping nuclear warhead.
19473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2 days ago


Yes and my main point was this, a criminal is going to find a way to get a gun whether or not is it legal or illegal to own one. To what it comes down to is this, if a criminal comes into my house with a gun I am going to be rather happy that I can have a gun of my own to protect my family and myself.

Any type of restriction on getting guns would only stop regular normal citizens from getting them, it is NOT going to stop a criminal from getting one as majority of criminals who do use guns for the wrong reasons (yes it IS the person NOT the gun and that is a fact) get them illegally anyways.

So your chemical bomb thing really doesn't matter here as it has nothing to do with my main point.
7093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 2 days ago
Did someone say constrained pareto efficiency? lol
7161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / R'lyeh
Offline
Posted one day ago

shuyi000 wrote:

You are describing nuclear control... Countries with nukes using them as means of prevention...

...Same as guns, the authorities are allowed guns to aid them in crime prevention... commoners like you & me have no business carrying guns around...


The word you're looking for is "civilians", and there are legitimate reasons for individuals to possess firearms. Some examples include hunting, participation in recreational activities such as competitive marksmanship, and protection of one's person and property. We can go out into the woods of rural Finland, you and I. I'll bring a hunting rifle along, and you can bring a distress whistle. Which of us is going to be more useful when a bear shows up?

What matters is not whether individuals are able to possess firearms, but rather how thoroughly vetted those individuals seeking to possess them are and whether they're stored, maintained, and used properly on a consistent basis. Going back to the example of Finland, possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated (but not illegal), the rate of intentional homicide is relatively low, and the rate of firearm ownership is among the highest on the planet. Wouldn't you say that this gives reason to believe that outright bans on individual firearm ownership may not be necessary?
13691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 4 hours ago

kevz_210 wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:

Yes the world would be better without nukes, but now that they are here and going nowhere the best we can do is keep them out of the hands of terrorists and use them as deterrents to prevent war. You don't see two first world countries going to war anymore and no nukes have been fired since WWII so I think it is working.


You are describing nuclear control... Countries with nukes using them as means of prevention...

...Same as guns, the authorities are allowed guns to aid them in crime prevention... commoners like you & me have no business carrying guns around...


I think each country has a right to set its own policy and I respect other countries' decisions to ban public ownership of guns, but as an American many of us are skeptical of banning public ownership of guns mainly due to the historical precedence of guns being outlawed in some countries and later a large percentage of the population killed off by the same government: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, 1970s Uganda, etc. Maybe it works for places like Japan, but while I cannot see mass executions here as a result I can definitely see the Federal government further abusing their power and oppressing the people. (taking away first amendment rights, getting rid of search warrants)


Like I've said... you are committing a strawman here...
... The question is not about US... it's about what you think about people owning guns as weapon...
13691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 4 hours ago

BlueOni wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

You are describing nuclear control... Countries with nukes using them as means of prevention...

...Same as guns, the authorities are allowed guns to aid them in crime prevention... commoners like you & me have no business carrying guns around...


The word you're looking for is "civilians", and there are legitimate reasons for individuals to possess firearms. Some examples include hunting, participation in recreational activities such as competitive marksmanship, and protection of one's person and property. We can go out into the woods of rural Finland, you and I. I'll bring a hunting rifle along, and you can bring a distress whistle. Which of us is going to be more useful when a bear shows up?

What matters is not whether individuals are able to possess firearms, but rather how thoroughly vetted those individuals seeking to possess them are and whether they're stored, maintained, and used properly on a consistent basis. Going back to the example of Finland, possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated (but not illegal), the rate of intentional homicide is relatively low, and the rate of firearm ownership is among the highest on the planet. Wouldn't you say that this gives reason to believe that outright bans on individual firearm ownership may not be necessary?


Without or without guns, Finland will still be a country with low crime rate...
...Giving examples of successful countries with gun ownership is useless... you have to actually demonstrate what benefits does owning a gun have..

As for your jungle wildlife hunting example, we could simple allow the renting a rifle for a trip like this... Making gun ownership unnecessary.
7161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / R'lyeh
Offline
Posted 3 hours ago

shuyi000 wrote:

Without or without guns, Finland will still be a country with low crime rate...


Nevertheless the notion that there is a causal relationship between private firearms ownership and violent crime is brought into question given the case of Finland.


...Giving examples of successful countries with gun ownership is useless... you have to actually demonstrate what benefits does owning a gun have..As for your jungle wildlife hunting example, we could simple allow the renting a rifle for a trip like this... Making gun ownership unnecessary.


You have this completely backwards. You must justify banning firearms. The default case is that firearms are not banned, with proposed regulations restricting or prohibiting their distribution being founded on a sound rationale and demonstrable, legitimate state interests which you provide.
First  Prev  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.