Fury's Got Issues: #3, Gun Control

[Furyof5]

In another installment of "Fury's Got Issues" I shall be tackling another controversial subject. That subject being Gun Control.

Now of course just like any other controversial issues there are two passionate sides here, both of which believe they are absolutely right and that the other side is absolutely wrong. I shall examine these two sides now and you shall decide which side you take(though I highly doubt a review of the sides will change your minds):

The Gun Control Side:

Guns kill people. This is a pretty simple point that is often used on this side. A gun is a weapon of death and should only be handled by our military and law enforcement agents as others are too irresponsible to handle them and the gun could kill someone. Thus guns should be banned or extremely restricted for those other than Military or Law enforcement agencies.

If Guns are accessible criminals or the mentally deranged can get a hold of them and commit robberies and deadly crimes more easily. If someone with a mental illness which causes violence can walk into a store which sells weaponry and then is allowed to buy it this will open the floodgates for more and more Columbine and Virginia Tech incidents. Shootings which took the lives of many students and teachers before the students took their own lives with the firearms they used.

Children can get a hold of their parents guns and accidentally kill themselves. Weve seen it happen in the past, weve even seen commercials about it. Children are vulnerable and if a parent chooses to be irresponsible about where they place their weaponry then a child may suffer. More reason for Gun Control to be in effect.

And then theres the Anti-Gun Control Side:

Under the second amendment to the constitution it states that we as Americans have the right to bear arms. This was stated by the founding fathers as a means of protection, against enemies not only foreign but domestic. Domestic ranges from robbers to in the words of Thomas Jefferson; "an overbearing government that wishes to come into our homes". Guns are our means of protection, which leads into the next point.

Guns prevent crimes. Now this may sound odd, but its been shown that if a criminal believes that everyone around him is armed and capable of protecting themselves he will be less likely to commit a crime. Lets look at the case though of an insane shooter looking to shoot up a building. If a man enters the building armed and begins to fire someone may shoot him, ending his killing spree prematurely and stopping countless lives from being ended.

Guns dont kill people, the people using them do. If a man pulls the trigger and ends someones life does he get off the hook because "guns kill people"? Of course not, because it was his conscious decision. In the case of an accidental discharge or accidental death it is still the fault of the owners for not being responsible, but this is in either case a faux argument, as simply because something can kill someone doesnt mean that it should be taken away from people or made difficult to attain because the government deems it so. If this were the case then Cars should have the same treatment, as many more deaths are caused by car accidents than gun related deaths.

The same can be even said for foods which cause cancer or cigarettes or alcohol, not that they necessarily cause more deaths, but rather that they can, so why not ban them?

So what do you think? What side of the Gun Control issue are you on and what are your personal beliefs/views about the issue?

 

[Xemmy]

Fury Has Invented A Series So Epic That Jesus Vs Satan II the Movie would pale in comparrison.

Gun Control- Look a Right is A Right, and they aren't rights if someone can say, "No, you can't have a Gun." It's in the bill of rights. I don't like the idea of a psycho having a Gun, but damn it, I don't like the fact that Westboro Baptist Church has the right to protest. But that's the price of living in a free country. The whole point of The Right To Bear Arms was incase another Revolution was needed, so I suppose as long as the original principle stays, then there is no reason to complain about a few gun control laws, and I don't. But as someone who believes in individual rights, my stance is- As long as you are sane, and do not have a major criminal record, you should be able to buy as many as you want. That's a very Libertarian view point coming from someone who's kinda socialist, but fuck it. It's just how I see things.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I have no problem with tougher gun laws personally. In my job, I've seen the kind of problems that extremely weak gun laws can sometimes lead to. I have no problem whatsoever with responsible, law abiding people purchasing guns to use for hunting, target shooting and/or for personal protection in their homes. I myself own a gun for home protection.

What I do have a problem with, however, is the fact that it's easier to buy a weapon of potential mass destruction than it is to get a driver's license. There are any number of legal loopholes in gun control laws that can actually wind up undermining the laws in and of themselves, and they often do. It's not uncommon in the least for people that own and operate gun shops or sell guns via online to ignore regulations. It's not uncommon for background checks to be ignored or identities to go unverified, for instance, but the penalties for doing so often amount to little more than slaps on the wrist. My biggest complaint, however, are gun shows because its the easiest thing in the world to fly under the radar of gun control laws at gun shows. I went to one about a year ago just to see what it was all about and stopped at a number of tables and booths. I saw everything in there from M-16s to small hand grenades, any sort of rifle or handgun you can imagine, instructions for sale on how to take certain types of semi-automatics and turn them into full autos, etc. and all without any sort of ID. I asked several of them if they needed to check my ID or anything and I was always told that as long as I had the cash to pay, they'd sell me whatever I wanted to buy. If a gun shop owner ignores the law, the penalties for doing so need to be much tougher and that gun show shit needs to be done away with altogether in my opinion.

 

[Davi323]

I support the 2nd Amendment to a point. I do not believe civilians really need access to purchase heavy military grade weapons, so I don't have a huge problem with laws that ban fully automatic weapons...you don't need one to protect your home, you don't need one to hunt. To that end, those laws are fine. If the 1st Amendment has limitations, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily need to be absolute either.

Someone who served should be able to keep his or her military weapon though, provided they were discharged from service honorably.

I do object to laws that ban handguns, non-automatic rifles and the like though. They aren't military in nature, and I am far more likely to accept an argument that those are intended for legal purposes than the heavy duty rifles in the army. I support the right to carry and conceal too. The house isn't the only place where a gun can be used to protect yourself or your family.

However, I do think that all gun owners should be required to pass a gun safety class before obtaining a gun though. If its reasonable to require drivers ed before getting a driver's license, I don't see a fundamental problem requiring guns ed to get a gun. I do not believe such a requirement infringes at all on the right to own a firearm, nor is it unduly burdensome. If you want to exercise your right to own a gun, learn how to handle it safely, how to store it, and how to fire it. Be a responsible gun owner.