Right to bear Arms- Do you support this?

[Blamethrower]

I think you've just demonstrated by example why allowing citizens to carry firearms is a bad idea.

And you've just demonstrated why tongue-in-cheek statements shouldn't be written down.

Good job I'm not on twitter

 

[skyhigh]

Speaking as ex-police, in no way would I ever want everyone to be able to get hold of a firearm. Yes, there are illegal firearms going around but I can't say that I ever came across one. When you're called out to a house burglary in progress, for example, you know that it's unlikely the suspects will have a firearm. If anyone had a firearm, you'd have no idea what you would come across when you got there - in the worst case possibly even the homeowner taking pot shots at you in the confusion.

Armed police - yes, I do support this and there probably should be more officers with firearms. Having said that, would I ever have wanted to be a firearms officer? Not really.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Speaking as ex-police, in no way would I ever want everyone to be able to get hold of a firearm. Yes, there are illegal firearms going around but I can't say that I ever came across one. When you're called out to a house burglary in progress, for example, you know that it's unlikely the suspects will have a firearm. If anyone had a firearm, you'd have no idea what you would come across when you got there - in the worst case possibly even the homeowner taking pot shots at you in the confusion.

Its the two very different approaches:

Britain - "If home owners don't have guns, then robbers won't carry guns, so no-one will get hurt".

USA - "If robbers carry guns then home owners need guns to balance out the robbers, so no-one will get hurt".

Same logic, very different result.

 

[backontrack]

Isn't the right to bear arms actually the right to go to arms? As in, the right to form militias in the pursuit of freedom?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

HOMER
But I have to have a gun! It's in the Constitution!

LISA
Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

HOMER
You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. (he starts pushing Lisa) Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

LISA
No...

HOMER
All right then.

 

[backontrack]

HOMER
But I have to have a gun! It's in the Constitution!

LISA
Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

HOMER
You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. (he starts pushing Lisa) Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

LISA
No...

HOMER
All right then.

That's here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtxxwcQ20Fwv&t=0m42s

[YOUTUBE]UtxxwcQ20Fwv&t=0m42s[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TheNewNo2]

My view is that guns should be almost entirely illegal. You should only be able to have a gun in your home if the gun is necessary for a job which you perform at your home - for instance a farmer might need a gun. But if you aren't someone who lives at work, you don't need a gun in your home, and keeping one there should be illegal. Owning a gun should also be illegal, unless you have specific reasons you need one. Any guns in circulation should therefore be kept at police stations or in shooting clubs. All guns should be kept unloaded and inside gun safes. High capacity magazines should be banned for civilian purposes.

I support there being armed police units, but they should be the exception. There is no need for the regular police to carry a gun.

Regarding criminals possessing firearms, well, you can't stop it entirely, although keeping guns out of civilian hands will mean that most criminals do not have a gun. But frankly force asymmetry is safer than equivalent force if guns are involved - if the criminals do have guns, everyone else is safer if they don't have guns, as they're less of a threat and thus less likely to be shot.

Using weapons in policing style situations is very different training to that received by soldiers using weapons in combat scenarios. Soldiers are trained to neutralise hostile threats quickly using whatever means they can, police are required to try and apprehend suspects, having to answer for every bullet fired.

Of course, that is a theoretical requirement in the US, and is generally waived if the person being shot is black.

 

[WelshBluebird]

in the worst case possibly even the homeowner taking pot shots at you in the confusion.

Reminds me of the claims in the aftermath of the attacks on Paris that civilians carrying guns would have been able to stop the attacks sooner.
Kind of ignores two pretty important facts:
1 - In such a venue it is likely you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anyway, even if civilians were allowed in general.
2 - In the confusion and crossfire, I have no doubt more people would have got hit and injured or killed.

 

[GB]

My view is that guns should be almost entirely illegal. You should only be able to have a gun in your home if the gun is necessary for a job which you perform at your home - for instance a farmer might need a gun. But if you aren't someone who lives at work, you don't need a gun in your home, and keeping one there should be illegal. Owning a gun should also be illegal, unless you have specific reasons you need one. Any guns in circulation should therefore be kept at police stations or in shooting clubs. All guns should be kept unloaded and inside gun safes. High capacity magazines should be banned for civilian purposes.

.

Why? What about the 100's of people who use them either to hunt or recreationally who are not part of clubs or official organisations? Why should they be made to join clubs?

 

[TheNewNo2]

Why? What about the 100's of people who use them either to hunt or recreationally who are not part of clubs or official organisations? Why should they be made to join clubs?

Hunting for sport is barbaric and should be banned anyway, regardless of whether you use a gun or a pipe cleaner.

Regarding why people should be made to join clubs if they want to handle weapons, it's for the safety of society at large. The private holding of firearms is simply not compatible with ensuring people's safety. Guns in the home are a risk to everyone - to the owner's family, and to the owner themselves: the number one cause of death by gun is suicide. If you only allow licensed gun clubs to store weapons, it makes enforcement much easier. Spot checks on a few locations can ensure that every gun is accounted for, and that they are stored correctly when not in use. Besides, what are you going to be doing with your gun outside a shooting range or similar? Why do you need it at any point other than at the range?

 

[GB]

Who ever mentioned hunting for sport?

Besides, what are you going to be doing with your gun outside a shooting range or similar? Why do you need it at any point other than at the range?

Many people have access to private land so no need for a club.

 

[TheEdge]

Isn't the right to bear arms actually the right to go to arms? As in, the right to form militias in the pursuit of freedom?

Something like that. The argument goes that the second amendment was made so that the people would be in a position to rise against a corrupt government, this being not long after the War of Independence. Over the years it has morphed...

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Reminds me of the claims in the aftermath of the attacks on Paris that civilians carrying guns would have been able to stop the attacks sooner.
Kind of ignores two pretty important facts:
1 - In such a venue it is likely you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anyway, even if civilians were allowed in general.
2 - In the confusion and crossfire, I have no doubt more people would have got hit and injured or killed.

This is the big argument from the American side, although to date none of the major US shootings have ever been stopped by a 'hero with a gun'.

 

[Harbornite]

Something like that. The argument goes that the second amendment was made so that the people would be in a position to rise against a corrupt government, this being not long after the War of Independence. Over the years it has morphed...

When it was written, people had muskets and pistols. The amendment fails to take into account semi-auto rifles like the AR-15

 

[TheNewNo2]

When it was written, people had muskets and pistols. The amendment fails to take into account semi-auto rifles like the AR-15

When it was written, the US government didn't have nuclear weapons.

 

[Harbornite]

When it was written, the US government didn't have nuclear weapons.

Any Americans who support the 2nd amendment because of this are deluded.