Legal to have firearms in your house

[Alusair]

Every year I've taught at least 2 students who have been disfigured because of being involved in gunfights. As a teacher working with a challenging section of the public, my personal safety and that of my students is reduced by the easy availability of guns.

For these reasons I'm on the side of gun control.

I would argue that (at least in the US, I can't really speak for other countries) banning guns wouldn't accomplish much more than our ban on illegal drugs- people will still get their hands on them if they really want them, and their misuse will always only hurt the people in question or those around them.

With that said, I'm very firm on the belief that people shouldn't be anywhere near guns without being able to truly understand and appreciate what their capable of, and how to use them properly. I believe people of the US have the right to bear arms just the same as they have the right to learn how to fly an aircraft. But, they shouldn't be having anything to do with either if they have no idea what the hell they're dealing with.

However, controlled, banned, illegal, allowed, or whatever, I assure you that people will always find some sort of weapon to hurt one another with if that's their desire.

[lordgonzo]

If you want a gun , you will get it easy.

[Eliena]

Guns kill, it's plain and simple. 9 times out of 10 having a gun only causes more trouble for whoever is using it. Even in self defense, if a crook breaks into your home, with a gun out, and sees you pull a gun, most people will see it as a life or death situation, and shoot you before you have the chance to get off one shot.

Also, as stated before, having one in your home, there is always a chance that a child gets their hands on it, and kills themselves or somebody else. In fact over 14,000 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the US because they were playing with a parent's gun. It still happens with gun restrictions too, in Canada, about 800 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the same manner.

The better way to defend yourself and family would be with Martial arts. They teach you to assess the situation, and how to choose what battles are worth fighting, and what ones would be best to take the loss and move on.

On that note, stated before, Gun VS Bat... If they were in my house, the bat would win. I would force them in to close combat if they wanted a clear shot, and they would be taken down before they could take that clear shot.

I am a firm believer that guns solve no problems, only create problems, that said, I have an old battle ax attached to my wall, that I can have unlocked and in my hands in about 3 seconds (there is a trick to the lock most people don't know, that doesn't require a key to unlock), and I have a homemade Crossbow in my closet, that can fire my homemade bolts with deadly accuracy at 25 meters. However both of those require skill to even arm yourself with, and like any weapon, if you wield it at another person, you must be ready to use it to kill if you have to.

[Satan]

I would argue that (at least in the US, I can't really speak for other countries) banning guns wouldn't accomplish much more than our ban on illegal drugs- people will still get their hands on them if they really want them, and their misuse will always only hurt the people in question or those around them.

The problem is, you can't decide what's legal or not on the basis that if we make it illegal, people will still do it. Taking it to a further extent, you could justify stealing, or corruption, or any crime for that matter using that logic. You can't say "Oh well I'm not going to ban this because it's going to happen anyways."

[Alusair]

Guns kill, it's plain and simple. 9 times out of 10 having a gun only causes more trouble for whoever is using it. Even in self defense, if a crook breaks into your home, with a gun out, and sees you pull a gun, most people will see it as a life or death situation, and shoot you before you have the chance to get off one shot.

I think that would happen no matter what sort of weapon you pull on him.

Also, as stated before, having one in your home, there is always a chance that a child gets their hands on it, and kills themselves or somebody else. In fact over 14,000 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the US because they were playing with a parent's gun. It still happens with gun restrictions too, in Canada, about 800 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the same manner.

I would also fault that to lack of gun safety. They shouldn't be left in accessible areas for kids. Neither should medications, knives (or other weapons), and so forth either, but those accidents still happen too.

However both of those require skill to even arm yourself with, and like any weapon, if you wield it at another person, you must be ready to use it to kill if you have to.

How are those any different or less dangerous than a gun?

The problem is, you can't decide what's legal or not on the basis that if we make it illegal, people will still do it. Taking it to a further extent, you could justify stealing, or corruption, or any crime for that matter using that logic. You can't say "Oh well I'm not going to ban this because it's going to happen anyways."

I'm not necessarily saying that's a reason to make it legal, but rather that I don't think banning it would make it go away.

But I digress. I believe everyone (in the US, again, can't speak for other countries here) is free to decide whether or not they want to have a gun in their house. Some are obviously strongly against it. That's perfectly fine. I'd only be annoyed if I was told I wasn't allowed to because someone else that has nothing to do with my personal safety doesn't like them.

[Gnerphk]

If you're not talking about armed rebellion, what are you talking about?

Like, Waco-style get the ATF to burn down our house stand-offs?

How would me owning a gun prevent the gov't from enforcing a law I thought reached too far into my privacy?

It's known as deterrence.

For an example in modern society, I ask you to consider this: that in most cities, there are areas where the police choose not to go. Drug dealing and prostitution are widespread in most of these areas. Firearm ownership discourages the government from enforcing locally unpopular laws.

Personally, I'm morally opposed to both prostitution and most drug use. I'm convinced that our present approach to the societal problem is ineffective - and, incidentally, would remain so even if firearms were outlawed; criminals will always maintain firearm access.

My moral objection is insufficient to prevent society from performing self-destructive acts. The objections even of a majority of society are insufficient; America's "Prohibition" was ludicrously ineffective, largely due to an armed populace.

Consider the next "Prohibition". Will it be tobacco? Violent television? Alcohol again? Perhaps processed sugar or fryolator oil will be banned - for our health, of course. Or perhaps certain books will be outlawed, or certain religions, or certain unpopular personal choices. It has happened in the past, it is happening in other countries than my own right now, and it will happen most places in the future.

An armed populace deters tyrrany.

Would a ruthless and effective enforcement of America's drug laws improve our country? Probably.

Would anyone care to live in a country where draconian measures against that sort of crime are possible? No doubt some would.

I'd prefer to live in a country where we are encouraged, as a people, to find effective, creative, and non-tyrranical solutions to our own society's ills.

Please, if you disagree, share your reasons.

[japanpimp]

This is a discussion on if you feel a person without a criminal history and is mentally sane should have the right to own a fire arm for self defense in their own house

Please discuss in a peaceful way.

I like guns. I like bows and arrows too. I like long range trajectory. I have shot in competition with both guns and bows.

People usually place a certain image on guns. Like they are bad. But a gun is simply something that fires a projectile at high or LOW high speeds.

The projectile can be driven deep into hard cement, wood or plastic which helps us build things. Or the projectile can be sent to kill an animal for food or defense. Or is can be sent to injure someone or kill someone. Or it can be sent to help light up the sky if you are on a boat that is in trouble. It all depends on what the projectile is. Guns that shoot bean bags at low velocity do not kill, they hurt, bad. Again, guns are just fine. It is the projectile and the velocity of the projectile and what it is designed for that makes it a weapon or tool or deterent.

Every human has a right to protect themselves. How they choose to protect themselves should have some rules. I mean, there needs to be a limit put on what people can have to protect themselves. Any protection beyond that limit should be provided by legal authorities. What should that limit be? A rock? A stick? A knife? A bat? A tazer? A gun? A surface to air missle? A small nuclear device? A large nuclear device? I mean, we can't go crazy with the limit. But people should be able to use something to protect themselves and I feel that SOME guns are a good limit. Like a 12 guage with bean bags or rock salt. I mean, who needs a .50 Cal Browning Semi-Auto to help protect their house?

A person does not need to be shot with 00 Buck Shot or 30-06 cal or .45 cal bullets traveling between 800-3,000 fps in order for you to imobolize them and neutralize the threat. A bean bag or rubber bullets will stop anyone and make them not want to move. So as for having guns for home protection, I am 100% in favor for it. But the munitions need to be controlled so people don't get their hands on armor piercing and depleted uranium munitions. Basically, munitions that are overkill (pun intended) for home protection.

P.S. I hate it when people say guns kill. So do sticks. If you took guns away then the same people who used guns to kill will simply use knifes and arrows or the next available weapon. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[*jdm*]

@ japanpimp i would want hollow points to insure i kill the intruder

[Soulstrife]

me coming from a country where firearms are not for sale in shops next to mcdonalds (Australia)

i think that firearms only cause more trouble than they are worth in america you always hear about shootings and gang wars where innocent bystanders are shot

yes here in Australia there are still bikie wars and shootings but this is like a once a year occurance
and when stuff like this does happen 99% of the time it is drug dealers that end up being shot or their customers (hard drugs not pot)

so until Zombies start rising i am against the right to bear arms

[japanpimp]

me coming from a country where firearms are not for sale in shops next to mcdonalds (Australia)

i think that firearms only cause more trouble than they are worth in america you always hear about shootings and gang wars where innocent bystanders are shot

yes here in Australia there are still bikie wars and shootings but this is like a once a year occurance
and when stuff like this does happen 99% of the time it is drug dealers that end up being shot or their customers (hard drugs not pot)

so until Zombies start rising i am against the right to bear arms

What if someone made a special gun that was bright pink, made of plastic and shot large hard rubber bullets the size of golf balls at 300 feet per second? No enough to kill anyone but if you unloaded a bunch of those on someone they would leave your house real quick like.... would you use something like that for home protection?