Discussion in 'Weapons' started by Adam, Jun 20, 2003.
Or not? And why?
I can't see much point myself. If they were outlawed, bank robbers, murder's, terrorists etc will still be able to get hold them. But then again it may reduced some murders/assaults.
We have gun amnesty's in the UK from time to time, I think thats a better idea than outlawing them.
Trite but true, only outlaws would have guns. Plus, if you look at violent crime statistics for countries that've recently outlawed guns, they go up, quickly and steadily. Plus, for us Americans, the right to keep and bear arms is still relevant, even though they try to say it isn't...
"Without gun confiscation, the streets would not be safe for the S.S." - Adolf Hitler
Most definitely not.
Point 1: The first law of nature is self-preservation.
Proof: It is self-evident. The term "law of nature" comes from philosophy. I didn't make up the term. It is equivalent to the term "natural law." Examples of its use: the writings of John Locke, and the (American) Declaration of Independence. It is variously defined as reason itself, and as a subset of the divine law given to us by God. Take your pick. Examples of its definition: the writings of John Locke, and Romans 1-2 of the Bible.
Preliminary Conclusion: God (by whatever religion you define him) does not want us defend ourselves.
Huh? Wait a minute, does that make any sense? It's
utterly illogical. I must have gotten it backwards. God does want us to defend ourselves.
Point 2: The use of weapons in self-defense is morally justified.
Proof: Try this thought experiment: Suppose Abel saw Cain's blow coming. Would Abel have been justified in defending himself?
Natural law says "yes." We don't know what weapon, if any, Cain used. I assert that it doesn't matter how Cain killed Abel. Suppose he used a stick. Would Abel have been justified in defending himself with his garden hoe? Or with a stick like Cain's stick? Natural law says "yes."
Try this thought experiment: Suppose someone with a gun threatens Joe Citizen with lethal force. Joe somehow disarms the villain (untrained people do it every day) but the villain is still a threat to Joe's bodily welfare. Would Joe be morally justified in shooting the villain with the villain's own gun? Natural law says "yes." Let us change the facts now. Joe had the gun in the first place. It's his gun. Does this small change in the facts have any effect on the answer? As a matter of logic, no, it does not change the answer. Using a villain's weapon against him is logically equivalent to using your own weapon against that same villain in those same circumstances.
Therefore, any political law that denies me the right to use my own gun, logically denies me the natural law right to
use a villain's gun against him. Any law that denies gun ownership indeed denies the use of one's personal gun. Therefore, any law that denies gun ownership violates natural law.
Sometimes you need a weapon. Karate and jujitsu are great, but at 20 feet a gun is greater. No karate master can dodge a bullet. Various martial arts teach methods of bare-handed defense against weapon-wielding assailants. The techniques work but (1) only after many years of disciplined practice, (2) only if your empty-hand skill is better than his weapon talents, and (3) only if you are lucky that day. It is a fact that weapons are superior to bare bodies. Hello, that's why soldiers use weapons.
If one denies the use of weapons in self-defense, then one has
effectively denied self-defense. It is no consolation to the
20-year-old female rape victim living where guns are outlawed that were she a true master of the XYZ martial art, she could have fought off her armed rapist. Natural law and neighborly love say "give her a gun!"
Preliminary Conclusion: The logical conclusion from these several points, above, is that our Creator would want Abel and all of us to defend ourselves right here, right now, as we live and breath. He gave you the resources and the will power to stay alive. Sometimes that means you do a taekwondo spinning back
kick. Sometimes that means you shoot your antagonist.
Point 3: The right of self-defense is logically erased if weapons
cannot change with the times.
Proof: The weapons used today are logically and functionally equivalent to the weapons of old. For example, bats are the same as a stick. If a stick is okay, then logically a bat is okay. And modern guns are functionally the same as swords of old. Times change, but PRINCIPLES remain forever constant. The principle
behind self-defense permits the use of modern weapons just as surely as it permitted the use of swords, shields, sticks, and fists in the past because -- because -- functionally, all weapons are extensions of the mind and body. The PRINCIPLE that would deny one weapon would deny any other weapon, and thus, would deny all weapons.
Point 4: Suppose that a legislature would not have us defend ourselves with weapons. What result?
The result is that "might makes right." The result is injustice.
Evil does what Good (I would say God) does not want done. Good does not want violence, so evil is violent. Good wants justice, not injustice. Justice includes rebuking evil and retaliating against evil. But if -- if -- Good does not want weapons used in self-defense, then violent encounters become hands versus weapons. Weapons win, so in practice, there is no
adequate retaliation against the evil use of weapons.
Consequently, lawful people are easy targets. For want of an equal weapon they are bruised by the evil man's clubs, they are cut by the evil man's knives, they are shot by the evil man's pistol. They cry out for a hero. "Where is my champion? I thought that Good (or God) cares about me, yet I am denied adequate defense in the face present physical evil. This is NOT love!"
Guns are the modern weapon. We don't live in the year 103 or 1003. The same PRINCIPLE that would deny guns must necessarily deny all other weapons of defense throughout the history of Man. Bare hands cannot long contend with weapons, so if all weapons are denied, then self-defense itself is denied. But self-defense is a natural law right that comes from our Creator himself. In a conflict between nature's laws or God's laws and Man's laws, nature and God win.
Weapons must be permitted in self-defense. Therefore, in this age, guns must be permitted in self-defense.
Guns ARE outlawed.
Yes ami, thanks. Sometimes I need the obvious told to me. In this case I thought the question was, "Should guns be outlawed," not, "Are guns outlawed?" My humble apologies if I misunderstood or misread the question. Accidents do happen, you know. I'm perfect only on Tuesdays. Today isn't Tuesday.
Here's my personal opinion, though certain people may not completely agree, which is perfectly ok.
First off, if guns were to be completely outlawed, there's bound to be more people with them than there are now, because there are generally quite a lot of people who do what they're not supposed to, just because they're not supposed to. I myself am that way on a couple things. However, I believe that if guns were kept legal, there would still be violence, but there would be fewer perpetrators because the intended victim her/himself possessed a weapon which thwarte the intended act. However, although I agree that a victim should be allowed to carry and possibly use the weapon if the need were to arise, I completely abhor the use of the weapon to take life unless there is absolutely no other recourse. Here's a scenario (real or imagined is irrelevant). A person is coming out of the store late at night, and is approached by someone who clearly intends malice, the unarmed victim would have no way to defend against the aggressor, and the perpetrator will be happy to find another victim at when the desire arises. However, if the victim were armed and could defend against the crime, the act might probably be thwarted, even if the victim has to use the gun. However, even though the victim's life is in danger, that does not give the victim all rights and priviledges to kill the aggressor, but merely to inflict enough damage to the aggressor's body/pride that the aggressor will (hopefully) think twice about committing another assault. Of course, nowadays revenge is quite a common factor, in which case a kill may or may not be required to prevent any further harm. But as such, the taking of the aggressor's life would be a little more acceptable because the perpetrator would otherwise seek out and kill the victim because of the sustained pain/damage.
If guns are illegal, then anyone carrying a gun is a criminal, and can be arrested and treated as such.
um how about no.
I personally dislike guns being a very peaceful guy sorta, but I feel completely justified in owning firearms to protect myself and my loved ones from those who would wish to deprive them or myself of life or property.
And if even if 'I' cannot own a firearm what would prevent a crimal from getting an illegal firearm? Nothing, gangs in major cities have automatic weapons which are illegal in most states in the US. If theses people have no problem in owning already illegal weapons what will keep them for m gaing to excess to wha they already have?
And it is a fact that when a country bans firearms violent crimes shoot up. Simply because the criminals know that no one else has any, if there is even the slightest hint of danger mosdt criminals flee being in general cowards.
"Should guns be outlawed? "
yes they should
Guns are for killing people, it`s that simple
Hypothetically, guns should be outlawed. We should not create weapons. Hypothetically of course.
But then again, hypothetically communism works.
Just because our world is so screwed up, we have to have weapons, and it's impossible to abolish them.
For those of you who are Matrix fans, in Reloaded the Architect says:
The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime... The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
And that sums a lot of it up.
I agree with Anne that hypothetically there should be no guns. However, being as how the only thing that scares me is guns, of course I'm going to own one if other people own them.(actually, a bbgun can make you feel pretty secure even) However if we could completly eliminate guns I would absolutely love it. But of course that is impossible so we need to be allowed to carry/own weapons
GUns are neede as long as ther are guns hence unless gunpowder suddenly cease to burn we will always have them. Untilk we make something better ofcourse, but now adays humanity is puting more effort into making beter video games rather than weapons.
Why not make it as dificult as possible for criminals to get guns? Rathre than have everyone in the world issued with the power to kill easily?
by the way, Anne, I was saying bollocks to the guy in the Matrix, not to you, I think you made a fair point
It would only encourage more people to get access to guns if they were legal!
like yoda said guns r outlawed in the uk but ppl still do get hold of them, only about 2 months ago the garage about a mile or so away from me near the motorway had an armed robbery, another person held the shop up with a knife and he went to drive off, he drove across the grass to get onto the motor way quicker and he drove right into the ditch just before the motor way lol it was dark and he didnt notice it
Licensed and registered concealed carry weapons don't really get used in the commission of crimes. I wouldn't say we should let anybody that can wield a credit card carry around a Mk-19 on a turret atop their Hummer, but the weapons criminals use are almost invariably obtained illegally. Ah! And I can predict your next argument: "But, Khafra, there would be fewer guns to obtain illegally if all guns were outlawed."
Perhaps there would be fewer guns, but the criminals using them would certainly feel much safer when they did so. And even if you managed to round up and destroy every single projectile weapon on the globe, including the ones in the government armories that get stolen from every so often, that would only promote the homemade zip gun to the level of unstoppable superweapon, and any 14 year old gang member with mediocre fabrication skills could take out an entire police squad.
"and any 14 year old gang member with mediocre fabrication skills"
don't you mean 18 year old?
I've noticed that in countries where gun ownership is legal and common people are more paranoid for their safety. I live in a country where guns are outlawed. The chance of someone breaking into my house with a gun in their hand is very VERY small. Most armed robberies here are carried out using replica guns. There is gun crime but not nearly as much as in countries e.g. the US, simply because guns are a little harder to come by and because criminals don't feel they need them because they won't be looking down the end of one if they break into someones house.
There isn't an arms race here between law abiding citizens and criminals.
Separate names with a comma.