Other People's thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

[Slav]

Recently, there was an incident in New Zealand where a gunman committed an atrocity against people attempting to practice their religion. The man used an "Assault" rifle to carry out his terrorist attack. Following the attack, Gun debates were sparked around the world about whether people should have the right to own a firearm. Following the attacks, New Zealand swiftly banned these "Assault" rifles because of one incident. I know in New Zealand, they don't have a right to own a firearm but in the U.S you do. I'm first going to put out there that I'm a pro gun Libertarian but I'm not here to preach my opinion, I want to hear your opinion regarding the 2nd amendment. I usually don't like to get political since people get heated over it or it will make someone dislike you without knowing your personality. I'd rather get y'all's opinions rather than some crackpot on Twitter and that's why I'm here . Whether it'd be one sentence or one paragraph, I want to hear some people's opinions regarding it and I don't get offended, so say what you will.

 

[SandraDeelightful]

I’m also a pro-gun libertarian. Gun control is exactly what that horrible, horrible person wanted. He wanted to spark this debate that would tak away guns and start a civil war. Also, gun control doesn’t work. I live in Chicago. We have the some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the most gun violence.

Also, I’m five 5”4’ and I have no strength. I don’t own a gun, but I’m considering moving out and living on my own soon, and I would like to be able to defend myself in the worst case scenario.

 

[Idea]

I used to be pretty much anti-gun. To me it was a no-brainer: If you just go shilling out guns to anyone who can grab one, people are bound to get hurt. You can't realistically stop crime. Information I was given at the time, from sources I thought neutral, was that most statistics contradicting this were funded specifically by gun-promoting organizations and couldln't be trusted.

As the biases became more appearant to the point of becoming unbearable I dipped into more sources of information and ended up with a more nuanced view I hold today. I still feel like too great a degree of freedoom, even for simple firearms, is too great a risk for too little an actual reward. I still have it in a note somewhere to gather some numbers, but my stance is that simple guns should be allowed to be purchased by any invidual that obtains a licence by passing a set of tests, much like a driver's licence. A psychological evaluation, plus gun safety tests and aiming tests, plus a consideration of prior criminal record. Should a person pass on all these accounts, I believe they ought to be afforded the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes.

Even then though, this should come with high accountability.

 

[Jannah]

Is that the gun one? It's likely a cultural difference, but as a Canadian I'm completely baffled and perhaps even shocked by it.

 

[Lord Aphrodite]

I personally don't think that we (USA) need as much availability to purchase guns as we do. I'm not educated enough to say anything beyond that.

 

[Slav]

Is that the gun one? It's likely a cultural difference, but as a Canadian I'm completely baffled and perhaps even shocked by it.

Yeah, in the U.S your right to own a gun is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. You'll only understand if you've lived in the U.S and have learnt their values.

Information I was given at the time, from sources I thought neutral, was that most statistics contradicting this were funded specifically by gun-promoting organizations and couldln't be trusted.

It's hard to find unbiased info but if you look hard enough, you'll find it. I tend to use Government sources because they tend to be more unbiased.

 

[Idea]

It's hard to find unbiased info but if you look hard enough, you'll find it. I tend to use Government sources because they tend to be more unbiased.

I usually just use a mixture of cross-referencing, intuition and looking up the studies themselves for examination.

 

[Becker]

Heyo Slav , I think this is quite a interesting subject and it's awesome that you're keeping a open mind to other opinions! I have met a few die-hard Americans in my time who would rather lose a leg than their automatic rifles.

As a Brit, I value the approachability of our Police extremely highly (if not, above all) and that approachability is one of the main reasons why British Police are by majority, unarmed. Of course, we do have our highly trained armed response teams and what-not but by and large our Police and Community Support groups prefer to not be armed with lethal weaponry, however there has been a huge increase in the numbers of tazer-equipped Officers because it's the next best thing really.

I think that because of the 2nd Amendment, allowing people to collect fire-arms, the Police and other Goverment figures have no other choice than to arm themselves as well. Situations like the North Hollywood shootout only further conclude that there is a 'arms-race' between what the Citizens are allowed to purchase (or illegially obtain) and the Police's decision to put away their approachability in return for their own protection (rightly so but it's a horrifying conclusion nonetheless), a decision that I hope will never make it's way into my country as it would dishearten me deeply if the British Police were forced to 'arm-up' in the face of increased gun-crime, terrorist attacks and so forth.

So to conclude, the 2nd Amendment at the time of it's publishing made alot of sense, however today I think it is too dangerous to both the citizens and the police. No matter how many regulations that have been put into place, there are still schools being shot-up and that lose of young, innocent life would absolutely not be tolerated in the UK and it disturbs me deeply that some (but certainly, not all) Americans turn a blind-eye to what their 'Constitutional Rights' are capable of so that they can keep their 'hobby'.

 

[Idea]

So to conclude, the 2nd Amendment at the time of it's publishing made alot of sense, however today I think it is too dangerous to both the citizens and the police.

If I may ask, what made the 2nd Amendment, in your opinion, make sense back when it was published? Since I'm not seeing where the difference would have lied compared to today.

 

[Becker]

If I may ask, what made the 2nd Amendment, in your opinion, make sense back when it was published? Since I'm not seeing where the difference would have lied compared to today.

Hi Idea It would make sense for a 'ready militia' (i.e, every military-aged/fit male armed with a weapon) could be called up in case of the British were to attempt retaking the former colony as the Americans had only just declared Independence two years prior to the Constitution being made.

To quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." - I would interpret that as "Having a reservist force ready at all times in case of a national emergency".

 

[Idea]

Having a reservist force ready at all times in case of a national emergency"

So, basically a military?

 

[Becker]

So, basically a military?

Well, that's my interpretation at least. So having this Amendment 'unedited' today seems a bit too risky and unnessisary. It's not like the Americans are going to be invaded by us Brits anytime soon..

*Wink, Wink*

 

[Becker]

Wait.. did I just give away our plans?...

damn.. well there goes 'Operation Retaking that pesky Colony'.

 

[Slav]

Becker In the U.S, there is a lot of distrust between the government and it's citizens, it's sad but that's how it is. I don't trust the government to protect our rights and that's why many people support the 2nd amendment. I trust our police officers whether they have a gun or not. Some people get scared knowing there is a gun around but I don't mind. Mass shootings have been happening more recently, especially after Columbine. Columbine happened during the Assault Weapons that was in the U.S between 1994-2004. A lot of Mass shootings were preventable, the Parkland shooting happened because the FBI and the local police department didn't do their job. They have plenty of evidence and enough reason to take away the shooters guns before it happened but they didn't. A majority of Mass shootings happen in places where there are no firearms. That's why churches, school and public events are targeted because everybody there is defenseless. The shooting is already over before Police get there. They are a rare occurrence and I don't think we should be going out banning guns when it's just an abnormality. A misconception people have about the U.S is people think we're able to own Automatic firearms. That's not the case. You're unable to own an automatic weapon unless you're former military or extremely rich. All firearms people have in the U.S are either, semi-automatic, lever action, bolt-action, or single shot. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon usually chambered in a 5.56 NATO round. Hunting rifles have more stopping power than the AR-15. The AR-15 gets vilified because it's big , scary and look likes a military rifle but it's not. It's modern sporting that can be used for small game , home defense or just target shooting. I'm not just going to ban the rifle because of a few rare shootings. Yes, some people view it as a hobby but to some it's much more and I'm not willing up my Constitutional right because of madman, who's intention is to sow discontent.

 

[Elise Ebele]

I am fully in favor of the right to bear arms. My parents don’t believe in firearms and would never allow for me to have one in the house; which, I don’t argue with their reasoning, because 7 of my younger siblings still live in the house, and they don’t want a gun in the house.

But now that I don’t live with my parents I do plan to get a license (I’m like 99% sure you need a license or some type of registry to buy a gun) and eventually get a concealed weapons license, since I am old enough. If a person is educated and responsible, there should be no problem with them owning a weapon. I would only use a gun for my safty, the safty of the public and the safty of my family. Though, I am very non-confrontational, and I don’t really like hurting people. So I am not sure I would ever actually draw a gun even if it was my safety on the line.

With that being said, the bad guy is always going to have a gun... so why shouldn’t i?



On a side note, Ya know I watched a video about how important the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment actually is and I thought it was interesting. It was talking about It was talking about these beople who went to court and how the people that won won because they actually understood whe]at it said.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

And ya know we don’t ever explor things in their full content any more... I don’t think my history text books include the whol amendment.

 

[The One Eyed Bandit]

So, I live in New Zealand, I can't say I'm the most news-aware person in the world but gun violence usually isn't much of an issue here as far as I am aware. I'd have to look into how many incidents when have in proportion to our population to be sure.

Even before the recent events, though, I've had the opinion that no citizen should ever really need a gun. The should there is the keyword, however. Depending on where you live, owing a gun might be a lot more of a necessity than it is here. Rather than trying to ward off firearms, I think governments should be working on reducing poverty, reducing crime rates, and etc, because if a bad or desperate person wants to get something, and use it to do something illegal, the law is hardly going to stop them.

But, I don't usually involve myself in discussions like these and don't have the most well informed opinion because of it. Just giving my food for thought because it happened here.

 

[AnimeGenork]

I'm more curious why you chose to write it as "assault" rifle instead of assault rifle, but that's all semantics.

When someone uses a gun to shoot a large amount of people, it's not because they want everyone to get up in arms about gun control. They either want to 1.) make a point that they believe, for some reason, everyone else shares about a certain group, such as this event in New Zealand involving a contingent of Muslims (condolences for all families involved and that they find healing and peace soon) or 2.) there is some sort of mental problem that results in them taking out something on a large amount of people. I highly doubt someone is wacky enough to think "haha, I want America to go to shit so I'm gonna do this."

I respect the 2nd Amendment. It is a valuable aspect of the Constitution. However, I think some people tend to forget that there are always exceptions to the rule, if you will, that some people should really not own a gun. I, for one, think I should not be trusted with a gun, not with my fantastic ability to hold a grudge and my occasional bursts of anger that result in the unfortunate harm of my 3DS. Hand me a gun, and we're in trouble. However, some people would keep guns only as protection, or even as a collector's item or something (not that I understand such use of them, but you do you, man). I have a friend who goes hunting, and he only uses guns to shoot deer. I know for a fact he would never consider harming people.

If you are purchasing a gun purely to harm someone else, then perhaps you really should not own a gun. If you're getting one for protection, that's fine! Good for you! If you're getting one because you're a collector of some sort and you think it's cool, by all means! It's when people dance around the laws and obtain a gun when maybe they shouldn't that we should really consider how--America at least--handles this sort of thing. I'm sorry, but I'm heartsick and exhausted from waking up to more and more reports of mass shootings, whether in schools full of people who are my age or a religious institution full of kind people who never did anyone any harm.

It's not a matter of the 2nd Amendment. It's a matter of understanding that some people want to hurt some people.

And every time I think about how that could've been my school, my friends, my church, I'm scared.

So in my humble opinion, there needs to be at least some sort of protection for those of us who don't trust ourselves with guns, some sort of restriction that does at least a little better in stopping all these unnecessary deaths.

 

[Slav]

AnimeGenork I wrote it as such because a lot of people describe the AR-15 as an assault rifle but it's a modern sporting rifle. The AR stands for Armalite rifle, not assault rifle. It's a common misconception people have.

 

[Idea]

With that being said, the bad guy is always going to have a gun... so why shouldn’t i?

To play devil's advocate here...cause you having a gun doesn't mean that the one you'll end up hitting is going to be the bad guy with the gun.

A misconception people have about the U.S is people think we're able to own Automatic firearms.

I mean I obviously can't speak for everyone, but my experience we don't make much of a distinction between owning automatic vs non-automatic firearms, to oversimplify we just don't see "owning a killing machine" as a right. Regardless of how many steps it needs to kill.

 

[Elise Ebele]

To play devil's advocate here...cause you having a gun doesn't mean that the one you'll end up hitting is going to be the bad guy with the gun.

I mean I wouldn’t pull a gun out on any stranger on the street.
I’m talking about if I’m asleep in my house and some one breaks in and threatens the safety of me and my children. Then yeah I’m going to blast his brains to Heaven if I have to

 

[Slav]

A gun in of itself is not a killing machine. Lay it on table and see what it does. It does nothing because it's merely a tool that can be replaced to cause harm. The real killing machine is us, humanity. We kill using our hands, whether it's a gun in our hand, our hands behind a wheel or your hands firmly gripping someone else's throat. We are the killing machines and I'm not going to give up my right because some people choose to do harm with firearms. Idea

 

[Idea]

I’m talking about if I’m asleep in my house and some one breaks in and threatens the safety of me and my children. Then yeah I’m going to blast his brains to Heaven if I have to

The question I was posing was not one of intent, but one of capability. If pull your gun on the bad guy with the gun, can the average person gaurantee they won't make the situation worse?

A gun in of itself is not a killing machine. Lay it on table and see what it does. It does nothing because it's merely a tool that can be replaced to cause harm. The real killing machine is us, humanity. We kill using our hands, whether it's a gun in our hand, our hands behind a wheel or your hands firmly gripping someone else's throat. We are the killing machines and I'm not going to give up my right because some people choose to do harm with firearms.

That is very poetic, but in the end of the day, guns are made to harm. Nobody is spreading butter with the gun barrel, the most harmless use of a gun is mutually assured destruction.

 

[Elise Ebele]

The question I was posing was not one of intent, but one of capability. If pull your gun on the bad guy with the gun, can the average person gaurantee they won't make the situation worse?

I can’t garante any thing. But that’s why we have training. I’m not going out to buy a firearm today. I have to learn how to use one, first. And I might take out one guy and be killed by a nother. I probably wouldn’t shoot if there were a bunch of kids around, and I could accidentally hit one of them. Even cops make situations worse with their guns, a specially since they spend so much time putt’n bullets in my innocent brothers.

But if you are going to bring harm to my family, I would like to exercise my right to eliminate you. That’s all I’m saying.

Whether or not guns or good or bad is a matter of opinion, and quite frankly depends solely on the person holding them.

I saw vedio footage of this active shooter situation one time in one of the states I respect the most; Texas. There was a man sitting in a bell tower shooting people on the streets. And you know what happened? The Texan citizens shot that joker out of the sky before the police could even think about showing up. They minimized the victim count.

 

[Silanon]

Always interesting to follow these kind of discussions - I'm living in a country that has very strict laws in regards to weapons, and I am not aware that the lack of weapons would have caused many problems thus far. Then again, that's certainly country-specific; there are areas in the world where a weapon has more uses than here, and perhaps the US is one of them.

That said, I would like to think that easy access to firearms (no matter what particular kind) is something that leads to the escalation of many situations. What I mean by that is the following: Let's say I'm robbing a gas station - and as someone above suggested, I bring a gun because the bad guys always find ways to get one, right? Then the likelyhood of someone owning a weapon directly influences how much of a threat the guy behind the counter is. If weapon laws are strict, he likely won't have a weapon. Thus, I'm in control, and we both know that. The guy behind the counter doesn't try to do something stupid, I take the money and run. If it's likely that he has a weapon hidden somewhere, however - every move he makes could be an attempt to grab it. I'm more likely to panic, and thus more likely to shoot at him - at least in my opinion, it seems like the availability of firearms puts him at a higher risk already. Didn't do any research in that regard, though, so I might be wrong, of course. Also note that even if he has a gun, he only has a certain chance to pull the trigger in time - the weapon does not guarantee his safety completely.

Think that's generally the case you have to consider - there are, of course, situations where someone truly just wants to harm someone, but I think those are much rarer. Again, no research - but I'm inclined that there are more cases of robbery than of assassination and mass murder. So if laws can make it so that the most general case becomes less dangerous, that'd probably the way to go.

The post above mentions one incident where liberal weapon laws actually helped to minimize losses of innocent lives - I think those kind of moments are rare as well. In most cases, people choose targets where they won't get much resistance. Would I bring a gun to church if I'd be allowed - likely not, seems counter-intuitive. How likely is it that someone comes in who needs to get shot down? Would I bring a gun to school, as a teacher perhaps? Likely not, there are children; and I wouldn't want to be the one causing an accident involving those, no matter if I was trained hours and hours to not make a mistake. Weapons are dangerous, they are meant to kill stuff. Leave them to those who are actually trained to use them in high-pressure situations, i.e. Police, Special Forces, military. If you're in danger, the best course of action is not to pull a gun and force the other dude to use his weapon in response - it's to stay calm and make sure that there's no reason that a single shot is fired. That does not cover situations where someone just wants to gun down people - but those moments are very damn rare, even these days, and easier access to weapons does not make it more likely to prevent them. Those murdered people in NZ - may they rest in peace - were potentially allowed to have an assault rifle, but none of them had one at hand when it was needed.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I heavily agree with the person above, I think sometimes in America we view having a gun like it makes us the hero in an action movie. We’re going to be the good guy defending our home/community from the bad guys.

I don’t have a link but I remember reading that most gun deaths in America are actually down to suicides and domestic disputes.

So in the case of suicide the person wants to die and they are going to use whatever means necessary to accomplish that goal. It doesn’t have to be a gun it can be literally anything.

As for domestic disputes again if the person is abusive enough to actively want to kill you they’ll find a way gun or no gun.

All having a gun does is make killing easier. It makes doing something rash in the heat of the moment simpler.

I think that’s the biggest argument I have heard for stricter gun control that I agree with. Not that guns are these evil killing machines that no one should have ever.

But at the same time giving people in a high stress situation easy access to a tool that lets them kill is going to end in a lot of situations where things are going to escalate unnecessary.

Let’s go back to suicide, if you use a gun chances are your going to die long before help can arrive. If you use other means there is a higher chance that you might be saved if help arrives soon enough. And isn’t that worth a shot? That someone in the heat of the moment might have to at the very least have to go through multiple steps to kill themselves giving them a better chance of being reached and helped?

And domestic disputes, look plain fact is a man doesn’t need a gun to kill a woman, his kids, or anyone else in his own home. Same for women.

They could use kitchen knives, their fists, poison, any number of things.

But again there is that concept of it takes longer. Unless you know what your doing (or you get unlucky) it’s not easy to beat someone to death or stab them to death or poison them.

So it’s more steps you have to go through and more of a chance that that person has of making it.

And in the more sensationalized stories of break ins and mass shootings same rules apply.

Maybe the robber has a gun, but if their hard to get it’s unlikely. This isn’t the movies chances are you won’t be dealing with some kind of criminal mastermind. So maybe they have a gun, maybe they have some other weapon.

But in robberies your actually better off just staying out of the way and not escalating the situation. They’re their to steal your stuff not hurt you. Which I think is definately a common misconception. People assume someone breaking into their house is going to murder them dead. Unless the person is set on committing a hate crime or it’s a domestic dispute that’s highly unlikely.

Which brings us to school shootings and other mass shootings. Often perpetrated by people with a history of domestic disputes, so that ties back into my above points already.

Now these are people that intend to kill because their angry for some reason at individuals or the world.

And if they didn’t have guns they would use something else. Absolutely but again that something else might not be as effective or harder to come by. Perhaps they try to mail letter bombs that are caught long before their intended target is harmed. Perhaps the bombs just plain don’t work.

Perhaps they use a sword and kill some people but less than they might have with guns.

Or maybe they get caught before that’s an issue because their neighbor hears them beating their wives and calls the cops on them.

Like I think a lot of the gun problems in America could be solved by mental health programs and taking domestic disputes more seriously. Catch these people long before they even get to the point of needing a gun in the first place.

That said I don’t think banning guns is the answer. They’re too tied up in American egoes frankly.

But I think if you are going to get a gun you need to pass stricter tests. Anyone convicted of domestic abuse or those suffering from any mental illness are out right away.

Also anyone who passes the tests need to take ongoing training not just one HOW to use the gun but WHEN. Know what situations are appropriate and know what situations you need to use de-escalation tactics instead.

And finally get rid of this good guy with a gun vs. bad guy with a gun mentality. Your a person contemplating murder. The situation should be treated seriously not like your a six year old describing the fight scene in an action movie.