Should we be allowed to own Guns for our protection, like they do in the States?

Question

What are the Pros and Cons of being allowed to bare arms.
And don't say " Long sleeves are better" or something stupid like that.

Answer 1

The primary advantage to owning fire arms as a culture is in deterrence. Most criminals are cowards. They don't want to get hurt any more than anyone else. So when anyone can have a gun on them it makes it much more difficult to select a target at random.

The old saying in the US is when you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns is true.

There is a book by a University of Chicago economist that shows a direct correlation between decreased crime and gun ownership. I can't think of it right now. He was a gun control advocate until he did the research and actually found that guns prevented crime.

Answer 2

Pros and COns to firearms. If everyone owned a firearm and carried it everywhere, it is much less likely that rape, buglary and simple asault would happen as often. Most victims are asaulted because of their vulnerabilities. If everyone owned and carried a gun, the vulnerabilities woudl be less and people would be on a more level field. One the other hand, crime committed by firearm woudl go up, both accidental and not. Those with hot tempers woudl be more likely to end their arguements at the end of a barrel instead of with fists or words alone. I like the idea that I have the right to bear arms as per the Bill of Rights even thought I have never owned more than a paintball gun personally.

Answer 3

No. The increase in firearms increases the risk of accidental killings. I am aware it is difficult to get rid of unlawful firearms. You must remember the very different history of the US, the people there still have a pioneer mentality. Having been in Washington DC just before the last three Presidential elections, watched the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, taken an interest in what goes on in the Primaries and their methods of voting and read widely I do not consider the US to be a democracy as we know it here. It is often more like the rotten boroughs of the 18th and centuries. The trouble is that it is so large, the views of the more sophisticated East and West coasts are entirely different from the mid-west. So often interested groups can buy votes and Television time and other media.
The one thing that saves British democracy is that buying television time by pressure groups and parties is forbidden

Answer 4

for the other posters
1.the us constitution in the 2nd amaendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms.this was to prevent a tyrannical goverment from forming like we had under the british
2.murder rates are high because of drugs and other ills.knives and blunt objects kill more people than guns in crimes.blunt objects being #1.
3.criminals are less likely to break into a home where they know the owner has a gun for fear that they will be shot.
4.several communities have laws that requiers ownership of a handgun.these communities have a very very low violent crime rate.
5.if only the goverment have guns then there is no democracy.hitlers first step upon election was to confiscate all privatley owned guns as did lenin and musolini and castro.
6.i dont know what country you live in asker but i think that an armed populace is a safer one.

Answer 5

It's "BEAR" arms, for one.

The purpose of bearing arms (according to the second amendment) is to be able to revolt--with force--against a corrupt government.

The Pro is that an armed citizenry is more likely to have the ABILITY to do so, and a side benefit is being armed against the occasional "bad guy" who would try to rob you, rape you, steal from you, etc. etc.

The Con is that a nervous government usually will disarm (or register as a possible prelude to disarm) its armed citizens, and not permit the kind of firepower that would allow such a revolt...another drawback of lazy gun ownership is that often the children of said owners pay the price when they find a loaded weapon at home, play with it, and either they or their friend ends up dead. Oops.

I'm glad to have the freedom to bear arms, but I don't own a gun.

Answer 6

The whole foundation of this nation was built on the right to bear arms,it is something that everyone that is able should do I believe.The system we have in the US is very good If you have ever been convicted of a violent crime or felony you give up the right forever,it also allows for the government to know who has what gun and where,last stat I saw I believe was 97 or 98 percent of all assaults with a firearms are commited by unliscenced people with unliscenced guns unless the gun was stolen in which case it is very hard to retain your gun liscence if you are that careless with your piece

Answer 7

It was the NRA that opposed the KKK. It will be the NRA who will protect America from the Taliban when they try to take over America, that may be sooner than you think. Save the kids? How about save the life of a fetus? While you might be right ? That we as Americans are no longer responsible to own guns just look who they put into office, however it is not up to you or me to take away any rights, nor is the lefts or rights responsibility to take away our rights.

Answer 8

No.

If firearms are allowed in the UK, there will be many more fatalities every year. If firearms are easily available, anyone could get their hands on them, and many unsavoury characters will. These reprobates will abuse the power of carrying a firearm and commit armed robbery, making our streets a much more dangerous place to live.
Firearms require training to use properly. Of course, you can just pick up a firearm and blat away, but if you had proper training in this field, you'd realise that a firearm is just as likely to kill you or your friend as the target you intend to hit if you abuse it. Many petty criminal types will not have a clue how to use it, and may inadvertantly kill the person they are mugging/threatening. I know they won't legally be able to get a firearm, but I'm sure it will be easier for gun runners if the UK makes owning a firearm easier in legal terms.

I for one don't want to be walking down a street thinking "does that chav over there have a gun?" At the moment, it's not so likely, but if this idea comes true then I would be very worried.

Also, do you remember that in the past there was a farmer who was convicted of assault? a yob robbed him and he fired a shotgun (at them, or in the air, I can't remember). The farmer, despite being the victim was sent to prison (I agree that he should have been punished, but the yob sued for damages and got off with the goods and damages money!). The yob won! If the UK adopted the right to bear arms then these sort of problems will escalate!

Answer 9

If people own guns people will USE guns. Ok - criminals will always have guns, but isn't it better for them to own them illegally, so anyone who owns one will automaticly do time, rather than anyone be allowed to buy a gun legally and then use it? If someone really annoyed you and you got into a fight with them if you DIDN'T have a gun you'd probably just lay them out, wheras if you had one you'd almost certainly shoot them. Are the people of the US any safer for owning guns - no, they have one of the highest rates of gun crime in the world, it doesn't work there, and it wouldn't work here.

As for those who say that assault would happen less often if people owned guns, that's just ludicrous. The person doing the assault would HAVE A GUN - they're not idiots. They could then simply point the gun at the unprepared victim and frisk them, disarming them. Simple.

Answer 10

Handgun ownership: Myths and Realities...

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is too loosely worded, and refers to the right of a militia to bear arms.

Anyone who thinks this could possibly help overthrow an oppressive government would do well to remember Waco, or any other incident where heavily armed isolationists thought they could take on the Federal government.

However, ready availability of guns is not the only thing which influences violent crime. Glock 509 mentioned drugs, but without being more specific (e.g. acquisitive crime fuelled by heroin and crack addiction) I cannot cite this as a cause, at least not the sole cause.

One of the main causes of crime anywhere is social inequality. The more people living below the poverty line, the more people with nothing to lose. The examples of South Africa and the USA are both societies with an enormous disparity between the rich and poor, (not to mention tension between racial groups) in which millions of people live in situations where desperation leads to crime...

Unfortunately, the issue of gun control tends to polarise along "conservative/liberal" lines, particularly in the US, with most proponents of 2nd Amendment rights being firmly right of centre. As a result, the people who most want guns are often the people least concerned with improving the lot of the least fortunate in society, preferring rather to arm themselves against the poor.

I would consider myself a liberal in most political matters, but I feel that honest citizens are being made to pay for the inability of the government to put sufficient checks in place to prevent incidents like Dunblane. (the killer was known to be disturbed, a paedophile, and had been stripped of his office as a scout master as well as being under investigation by the police at the time of the massacre)

Evidence shows that increased gun control doesn't cause gun crime statistics to fall: New York State experienced an increase after legislation was passed and since handguns were banned in the UK the gun crime rate has increased.

Conversely, studies in Arkansas and Switzerland have both shown that compulsory firearm ownership (one or more per household) have staggering effects in reducing crime rates across the board.

Would you rob or assault someone, knowing (s)he may well be carrying the gun they're legally obliged to own?

We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world in the UK. Yet in Catford, near where I live, you can get a gun without even knowing the right (wrong?) people- a visit to certain pubs can net a small arsenal.

I wouldn't want to get a gun in this way because I'm a (largely) law-abiding citizen, so the 5-year mandatory minimum is a good deterrent. But if I were a coke dealer or other professional criminal with a lucrative business to protect and a potential 25 year sentence if I got arrested? I would take the gamble and get a gun.

Putting a framework in place for legal gun ownership does NOT mean granting a gun license to every Tom Dick & would-be Dirty Harry, you can still make regular psychological screening and criminal record checks mandatory for obtaining and renewing a license, along with proficiency and safety examinations (both practical and written) to ensure that gun owners are au fait with the workings and safety procedures necessary to safely operate and own weapons.

Unfortunately, we are to a large extent subject to rule by tabloid, so when a nutter in Scotland shot a bunch of kids our government knee-jerked into a blanket ban on handguns. That was 10 years ago, and guns are still a problem. Nottingham is the gun-crime capital of Europe. Not Palermo or Napoli, Nottingham. UK has the strictest gun control in the EU and we have the city with the highest gun-crime rate.

Oh, and more children die in swimming pools in the US than as a result of firearm accidents. Don't see any "Mothers Against Pools" rallies though.