- STRICT GUN CONTROL 🚫🔫
- MORE GUNS FOR SAFTY 👍🔫
Most Helpful Guys
While I don't like to comment without voting, in this case the poll was too awkwardly structured to allow me to vote. "Strict" as in
Strict gun control" is in the eye of the beholder. What might be reasonable to one person will be too strict for someone else.
Similarly, "more guns for safety" is problematic. If I live in Silicon Valley, it is arguable how much safer a gun will make me. Indeed, the data show that the more guns in the home, the more likely there will be an accidental shooting. By the same token, if I live in Yemen, having a gun will likely make me a wee bit safer than I otherwise might be.
Bottom line, the poll is weighing two subjective and non-equivalent metrics. Hence, I did not vote.
That said, I tend to favor gun control as the issue we have - speaking in terms of the United States - is that we have a country, and a Constitution, that speaks to the rights of the people to bear arms. This right is asserted under the "natural rights" tradition and is assumed to be inherent in the rights of man.
This strikes me as implausible on two counts. On the more abstract level, the right to "keep and bear arms" is implied as a right of self-defense against both criminal elements and against an overbearing government. The problem is that there is nothing inherent in self-defense that necessarily implies guns. That right can just as easily be carried out with a baseball bat as with a gun.
Suggesting a right by reference to technology strikes me as ephemeral. Such a right must then be transitory - rooted in the technology available - and cannot be absolute. Yet the right of self-defense must be absolute.
On a more practical level, I come not from the "natural rights" tradition, but "natural law." That is that I believe that such rights as we have are those that are tested by time and experience and the inherent ability of the people to exercise those rights consistent with the common good and social order.
Based on what we see in violent crime statistics and the disproportionate damage done by gun violence, it is a reasonable inference that the society has demonstrated that it is not capable of handling guns in a way that is consistent with good order. Such a right cannot by definition exist - you cannot have a right to do that which is inconsistent with the broader good.
Therefore it is reasonable to argue that the Constitutional right is, in fact, in some sense a mistake. That the right to keep and bear arms is contingent rather than inherent. Throw in that Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights on the basis that if you articulate the rights of the people, you give the government standing to regulate those rights.
Burke said that man has no right to that which is not reasonable. Thus reasonableness being at some level contextual. In the United States, there is a level of gun violence that would be unimaginable in most Western countries and that is, indeed, more characteristic of the developing world than the West. In that context, restrictions on the right to own a gun are not an unreasonable response judged within the broader cultural milieu.
Based on all of that, I favor gun control. Albeit recognizing that it is apt to have less of an impact on societal well being than its advocates imagine. Society is what it is - and in this case we have a violent one and the Second Amendment, for good or ill, is an accomplished fact.
It must be addressed on that basis. A higher level of gun control would be sensible, albeit confined within the parameters set under constitutional law. We are, in that sense, not totally free to set the gun laws, but insofar as there is legal and constitutional standing to do so, greater restrictions would be both advisable and wise.
Law abiding people should have access to firearms. I live in the UK, it's very hard to get a gun legally here. Illegally? Not so much. You can get a glock here for around £100. Once I was almost shot by a nutcase with a sawn-off and I was completely defenceless, as was everyone else. It took the cops an hour to get to us. The guy who tried to shoot us got caught a few weeks later after shooting two people. Some people instead just use knives or acid however. Criminals will always find ways to kill. They can even find ways to arm themselves in prison:
Disarming good people only makes them less able to defend themselves.
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Girls
You are NEVER SAFE whether with guns or not. Our human history should prove that. You can control guns all you want, but that will not stop violence or crimes in schools. Disciplining our children, being involved with their lives and reprimanding bad behavior in our society by living godly is the only way to live in peace. Nobody wants peace, otherwise, we wouldn't be having these problems. I always said people are the problem. Not guns. I almost could have got killed in kindergarten by a 3rd grader who had a record and was arrested 3 times because he brought a knife to school. He was my bully and offender. Too many people are mentally ill and people are bullies. Stop the bullying behavior and chaste the bullies and we wouldn't be having so much gun violence. People turn to guns and violence because of hate and they think it's the answer. And police can't save you either. Somebody kidnapped right nor or is missing, what do they often say: Well you have to wait for 24 hrs to... 24hrs for WHAT!! The person could be dead and is in danger NOW! And if you take action then YOUR in trouble or getting arrested just for self-defense or trying to save the life of another.
- Show AllShow Less
How delusional someone has to be to think having more guns around will make anyone safer? If everyone was armed the odds of someone shooting another person even by accident are much higher than someone being attacked by a man who is carrying a gun illegally. how about the odds of shooting NOT by accident? Imagine how worse the drunk fights would get? Instead of fists in a bar some idiot would start shooting. How about someone is trying to 'defend' themselves, but end up shooting a person who meant no harm, someone who was agressive, but not violent. usa is a land of fools. Trump is a president. allowing guns. good luck to them
- Show AllShow Less