Why Should Guns Be Legal?

Great Debates
1

In the wake of the recent Las Vegas shooting, I’m left asking this question… Why should people be allowed to own ANY guns? I don’t have anything against guns, and I don’t think guns are inherently evil or anything like that. A gun is a tool, much like a shovel or an axe. The difference is that while a shovel can be used for digging and an axe can be used for chopping wood, there’s only one use for a gun: killing things. And I honestly don’t believe that your average American (or you average anything else) really has a legitimate reason to possess a tool used for killing, because I don’t believe that your average American has a single legitimate reason to be killing anything. So, the solution seems to be simple: ban guns. All guns. Pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles – all illegal.

So can anyone give me a compelling reason why ANY guns should be legal? Because frankly, I can’t think of a single one.

2

The most obvious answer is that many people feel that they or their family might be the target of a violent criminal and they want the means to defend themselves.

3

You’ve never shot at a bull’s-eye, or at least seen it done, for instance at the Olympics?

4

While I get that sentiment, the fact of the matter is that the person who’s most likely to get killed by the gun you bought is your own self, or someone you love. Additionally, I’d feel safer knowing NO ONE has a gun than knowing I have a gun, but so does the person coming after me. So that argument doesn’t really do it for me.

Not that I’m the one you have to convince – much as I wish I was, I’m not the Absolute Ruler of the United Empire of America. But if California held a “ban all guns” ballot tomorrow, that argument wouldn’t make me hesitate for a second before voting yes.

5

Guns are used to fire projectiles. Yes, those projectiles can be used to kill. But those same projectiles are also used to punch holes in targets and break airborne clay disks. Which is what all of mine are used for.

Additionally that can be used for defensive purposes, or do you believe that only large strong people should be able to keep their possessions?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

6

If we made guns illegal, how far would that go toward keeping them out of the hands of people who don’t care about legality?

7

There are two considerations here:

  1. First, when you say make guns illegal, you mean illegal for ALL, right, not just civiians? If you believe a total gun ban can work, then there is no reason for the police to have guns either. Celebrities should also not be able to hire armed bodyguards, and businesses should not be allowed to have armed security. If you recognize a need for certain people or places to have armed protection, then if you believe in an equal society than we ALL have that right.

  2. How far are you willing to go? There has been a lot of handwringing in recent years about mass incarceration. Ban guns and you’d better build a lot of jails. Gun laws would fall especially hard on people of color. Better be willing to fill those jails up and build a lot of new ones.

If you’re down with EVERYONE being disarmed but the military, and down with mass incarceration, then even I’m willing to discuss a gun ban.

8

I’ve been to the shooting range once. Certainly something I’d be willing to give up if it meant we didn’t have to deal with a mass shooting ten times a year the way, say, Australia or England don’t have to deal with mass shootings quite as often.

I’m certainly glad you don’t use your guns to kill things, but I don’t consider the enjoyment you get out of shooting targets to be worth the risk of guns being available to the general public.

I addressed this in a previous post, but I don’t think guns used for defensive purposes really do a heck of a lot, considering how the person most likely to be killed by a gun is its owner. I don’t think you (or I or anyone else) need guns to protect yourself. That’s the police’s job. That’s why Batman is a comic book character rather than a profession, and not a great role model.

Pretty far, if we judge by the examples set by other countries. Especially when the cops go and take everyone’s guns (yeah, when people said “oh no! Obama is gonna take our guns!” I thought, “about damn time!”)

I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to own a gun. I think cops should have limited access to guns (a beat cop doesn’t need one. There should be a couple at the station for the SWAT team to use, in case some asshole smuggles in a gun from abroad and starts shooting up people. But for a guy on patrol, a tazer and a heavy baton is more than enough). I also recognize that some professions do require weaponry. If you’re driving an armored truck for a bank, maybe there should be a pistol in the truck. Doesn’t mean it needs to be YOUR pistol. If you are a farmer and you’ve got wild hogs eating your crop, maybe you need to go out and shoot them. That’s fine. You can even use your own private gun. But it should be HEAVILY regulated, and if someone ends up dead with a gunshot wound in your town, the cops should know YOU are the guy who legally owns a gun, and you better be ready to explain where your gun came from.

At least for a limited time after the law passes, I’d be down for some sort of limited liability system. You give up your gun peacefully, great, no prison time. You own an illegal gun? We search your home, fine you, and take the guns, but you don’t need to end up in jail.

But anyone dumb enough to buy a gun after a blanket gun ban? You’re dumb enough to own a weapon made for killing, you belong in prison.

9

It’s called the Constitution.

10

Like he mentions above, for killing livestock, a single shot, no magazine, bolt action weapon is adequate.

For target practice, there’s BB guns - just enough velocity to make a hole in paper.

One way you could interpret the constitution is to say that individual may own any weapon the authors of the constitution knew about during the drafting of the document.

That means black powder muskets, pistols, even cannon. Also air rifles. Interestingly, I don’t know if this is coincidence or not, but anyone may own any of the above weapons. (black powder muzzle loaders including cannons). Even convicted felons.

You technically could defend yourself from an intruder with a musket. Just don’t miss. And if you do, be trained in using the bayonet.

This politically can’t happen, but the Constitution isn’t what is blocking it.

For defense from wild animals, there are tazers designed for use against bears and other large land animals.

11

Yes, the United States has a constitution. So do lots of other countries. The United States Constitution said that keeping African-Americans as slaves was A-OK, until half of us decided that was bullshit, fought a big war with the other half, and changed the Constitution. There was also that time when half of us decide that alcohol was The Devil, and altered the Constitution to ban it. Then when things went to hell, we realized that that was a bad idea, and made it legal again.

When will we realize that the Second Amendment is a dumber idea than the Twenty First? Who knows. But between alcohol and guns, only one of the two is built specifically to kill people.

12

Where did the Constitution say that slaves were OK? Cite, please.

13

*Snip. There are certain instances where killing “things,” including sometimes human beings are both legal and necessary. Guns are used, in part, for those instances.

14

That’s a joke, right?
…

No? It isn’t?

Well, is the fact that it took 3 amendments after the Big Ten before they actually banned it good enough? The fact that it took 89 years and a civil war to actually ban slavery isn’t enough for you?
What about the part where the constitution explains that the number of citizens in a state includes its “free persons”, not including those dirty injuns who don’t pay taxes anyways, and three fifths of its’ “other persons”? Is that enough to show you that our glorious Founding Fathers (who all kept black people as property) were just fine with slavery? No?
What about the part where it stops the federal government from banning or otherwise regulating in any way the importation of such persons until the year 1808, aside from a minor tax? Is that enough to show that slavery was considered par for the course?
What about Article IV, Section 2, where it’s clearly stated that no state’s laws can free a person from the laws obligating them to “service or labor” in another state? What do you think that refers to?
Is this really the hill you want to die on? Arguing that the US Constitution wasn’t written under the assumption that slavery was just fine?

15

OK, first up… why is this question more relevant now than say 10 days ago? Why does a mass shooting spree determine the validity of the question? Did you ask the same question after the terrorist attacks in Paris for example, when 80+ people were shot dead inside a music concert?

Oh, but I hear you respond… those deaths in Paris were caused by terrorists! Those deaths were caused by guns which weren’t legal!

And? There’s all the proof you need that making guns legal, or illegal, won’t stop bad actors from obtaining them and using them.

All those tunnels from the Sinai into the Gaza Strip? They’re not being used to bring in wet wipes and breakfast cereal, they’re being used to bring in arms - really deadly arms.

The myth that too many people clutch to is the myth that rules and laws, in and of themselves, will stop bad actors from being bad actors.

And the other myth that people clutch to is making guns illegal will somehow miraculously remove the millions of firearms already in circulation. In some countries, possibly that can work but in the USA? No chance, no chance at all. So then you have the Port Arthur conundrum. The primary weapon used in the Port Arthur massacre was a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine manufactured in 1976. That was a 20 year old rifle by the time that massacre occurred, still perfectly operational and perfectly lethal IF a bad actor decided to use it that way. Multiply that one rifle by millions and millions and that’s how many semi automatic rifles already exist in US circulation. Forget about the 2nd Amendment preventing you from making guns illegal, just concentrate on the physical impossibility for a moment.

There’s an old saying… “Locks are only meant to keep honest people out…” and that’s how bad actors, terrorists, and criminals look at gun control. They look at it, they laugh, and they ignore it.

16

That’s a circular argument. You’re basically saying that guns should be legal because they’re legal. It should be obvious that the debate here is whether there is sufficient justification for retaining the laws, including the Second Amendment, which make guns legal.

17

Babale:

I agree with the sentiment of your point. Mass killings are unacceptable. Owever, you may have painted with too broad a brush by gong after all guns.

Cars kill many people each year, and they can be used as a weapon and kill people. We accept the risk of cars, because they are useful. We accept the risk from alcohol, tobacco, swimming pools, and even toothpicks which injure or kill 8,000 year. A good knife in the right hands can kill. Bunch of people. Derringer is good for only two.

My point is that not all guns are unacceptably lethal compare to their utility, and recreation is a utility.

Semi-automatic rifle and automatic rifles are stand off weapons that are good for killing scores of people. They are not good for targets, hunting, or other sport. They are designed and useful only for killing large groups of people.

So, instead of “the gun debate” wherein my skeet shooter, target rifle, hunting rifle, and home defense gun, are jumbled into the same basket with these weapons of near mass destruction, I propose that we should be having two gun debates.

The first one Is who should be allowed to own these assault weapons capable of killing dozens or even hundreds at a time?

My answer to that? Nobody besides the military and police?

The second one can be about the skeet and target guns and handguns, etc. yes, I know that abused these guns can kill several maybe a dozen people. You drive a car into a parade and you can do the same thing, or the right guy with a machete can do the same thing. Really, there are many ways that an asshole can kill a dozen or so people besides using guns intended for other purposes. So, I say we table the second part of the debate and we solve the problem before us.

Ban semi-auto and auto rifles completely. We solve the problem of the mass killings. If we, as a society reach to far, than those who use guns responsibly will take issue, rightfully, and stand against you, and w risk accomplishing nothing again.

If that happens than those who advocate the ban of all guns will be just as culpable in the next mass killing, because in their zealous overreaching they lost the good will and cooperation of their potential allies, and squandered the opportunity to take away the means for these mass killings to occur.
The gun debate should not be a gun debate.

We should be having an assault capable weapon debate. You would find a lot of allies among responsible gun owners. And, responsible gun owners are the majority.

18

I think the argument would be that people who are killed by their own gun tend to have other risk factors in play like suicidal tendencies or recklessness. Most gun owners feel that they have control over those factors so the threat from their own gun can be reduced. However they do not have control over whether somebody else chooses to make them the target of a violent crime.

I understand that. But I would assume many gun owners feel a gun is an “equalizer”. If neither person has a gun in a physical confrontation, the winner is likely to be the person who is bigger or in better shape (or has another weapon life a knife). People who feel they can’t physically defend themselves from a violent crime might therefore carry a gun to defend themselves.

19

I don’t think anybody is going to argue that laws are perfect. But they obviously do have significant effects.

Let’s say that a widespread prohibition on guns reduced the gun-related death rate from thirty thousand a year to five thousand a year. Would you argue that the law was useless because there were still five thousand deaths? Or would you say the law was effective because of the twenty-five thousand reduction in deaths?

20

You’re wrong. You are plain flat out wrong. The Colt AR-15 used in the Port Arthur massacre was designed as a hunting rifle, end of story. That’s how it was promoted and that’s how it was sold. Highly accurate, and super light, it can be used with a scope in single shot mode all day long. It also happens to be a semi-automatic self loading rifle.