DinnerX wrote:
Ivo wrote:It is justifiable to get a gun and a few rounds once in a while for hunting and other legitimate uses. It is harder to justify having a full automatic or keeping hundreds of bullets.
I don't agree with this. I don't think citizens need justification for owning something. I think the government needs justification for taking something away. Small difference perhaps, but it does lead to slightly more lenient weapon laws. It's a chance I'm willing to take.
That is fair enough and I agree with that stance in general. And is reason to consider owning the guns should be less restricted, but placing the restrictions on the ammo.
Unfortunately I don't think with guns it works well enough to simply have a license to shoot, it has to be at the ownership level of something. In that respect it differs from fishing and driving, as if you already shot without a license it is perhaps a bit too late already. You can drive without a license and it is only too late if you already caused an accident. So I think it is fair to put gun restrictions at the ownership level (of ammo perhaps) whereas driving restrictions are at not at the ownership level.
Continuing with the analogy with driving (although with that key difference): should not both have age restrictions? Should - say - teenagers at 16 be able to own guns and ammo, given that the legal driving age in some places is 16? Should someone with impaired vision that is restricted from driving be allowed to own a gun and ammo? Surely some restrictions are reasonable. Lets not put everything together and reject restrictions wholesale just because they "reduce our freedom". They reduce some freedoms to protect others (like the freedom not to get run over by someone that should not be driving
).
I find it hard to say a government does not have a good justification for restricting the freedom of regular citizens to own (without explicit justification) hundreds and hundreds of bullets.
I think nobody in the thread questions that a government quasi-automatically has justification for taking high-powered explosives away from regular citizens (unless the citizens themselves have a good reason to have them, due to their line of work etc.). Honestly I see owning hundreds of bullets as pretty similar to owning high-powered explosives. Either you have a justification or you just should not have it (maybe you are a collector and have a few of each type to many different weapons - I would say that is reasonable; it is pretty different from having loads and loads of ammo for a single weapon, what is possibly the purpose of THAT).
Forlorn Drifter>
If even police officers (who are professionals) are not trained, then how do you expect regular citizens, who have other jobs, to be trained? Maybe it happens to be their hobby of choice, but how many of those do you expect to be around to "save the day" when a criminal is causing trouble? What if instead, people that WANT to own the gun are "forced" to be trained? That seems sensible to me. You WANT to drive a car? Sure, but you have to prove that you can do it safely.
Also, genuine question: you want a gun, fair enough. Someone wants to drive a car, fair enough. Both should have restricted access. Further, do you want a gun and a few bullets (and if you happen to use those buy some more), or do you want a gun and keep a stock of hundreds of bullets? I think there is a very important difference there.
Johnodog>
It is not just pure conjecture, South Africa has been mentioned before and other places like certain areas of Brasil you get extremes with criminals that basically do not value human life at all and situations with kill first, rob after (avoiding potential resistance) do occur.
We don't know what can happen exactly, and many of the things are conjectures. But given that some people are saying "If more citizens had guns things would be better" as their own conjectures, I think it is fair to state that the opposite could readily be the case. The idea that there would be many heroes with guns saving the day has been addressed with suggestions that friendly fire could readily occur between these heroes. I suggest also that if criminals know people are likely to pose effective resistance, they may be pre-emptively more violent.
People must acknowledge that the criminal will ALWAYS have the advantage naturally, as he is the initiator. Everyone else is by definition reacting - even if they have guns.
In your (apparently ideal) world where it would be one criminal against many "heroes", I wonder how many more friendly fire situations would arise. Or worse, "I thought he had a gun" shootings. It is scary enough when police do that. I don't really want to be in a place where regular citizens are likely to do the same type of mistake.
If you are an expert in human nature and science of criminology then please enlighten me on why you think the opposite is more likely.
Ivo.
