Those who favor greater restrictions on firearms ownership and availability tend to believe some subset of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
I think in some respects it does undermine the executive branches of government and their ability to carry out their duty to protect. But is it more that the inadequacy of such branches in achieving their duty partly responsible for the need for private arms?
I'm plagued by the old argument that less guns means less risks. If no-one is able to keep them, then no-one may be put at risk of misuse. But perhaps I'm fortune to live in a relatively safe country, I dont have to lock my door at night, so what can I understand of the risks and needs of protection.
Still, what if rather than thinking in terms of one persons right to maintain arms, thinking about the majority of people's right to be free from the threat of their use?
I wonder if everyone had to own a gun, what would happen.
- There is no fundamental right to own firearms.
- Guns represent a more effective method of killing than other varieties of weapons, and their elimination would lower rates of death and injury.
- The great majority of people in the USA do not own guns.
- Gun control legislation reduces violent crime.
- Guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets because most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides.
- Guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner because in incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is often more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon; also, criminals may act in groups.
- Even against armed criminals, the presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence.
- Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation.
- Citizens need to protect themselves against crime, but owning firearms is not a good way to accomplish this.
- Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they vigilantly confront malfeasance before violence is necessary, or that even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military that a government would bring to bear.
- Guns, being devices designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people.
- Gun control, properly and judiciously applied, lessens (though cannot eradicate) the possibility that criminals will obtain firearms.
- Fewer guns means fewer deaths relative to homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths [1].
- Owning firearms is a right (In the United States, the Second Amendment is usually given as a means of debate).
- Equipping in defense from predators, criminal, animal, or otherwise is a right.
- Equipping for subsistence and survival is a right, and firearms represent a legitimate means of hunting or harvesting animals for food.
- Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens.
- Guns in the homes of the law-abiding populace reduce the occurrence of burglary and home invasion crimes.
- Family, public health and insurance actuarial death statistics demonstrate that the risk of responsibly owning a gun is negligible compared to other typical hazards, e.g., bathtubs and swimming pools, automobiles, bicycles, suffocation hazards, and ingestable poisons.
- Although government is tasked with an obligation to protect citizens collectively, government is not obligated to protect any given individual citizen without a special relationship established with that citizen prior to victimization, and thus citizens have a demonstrable need for personal protection. (In U.S. case law, courts have held that the police cannot be held civily or criminally liable for failing to provide individual protection (Warren vs. D.C)) [2]
- The concept of government and police having absolute and total responsibility to protect citizens leads to government and police bureaucracies that are fortresses of undemocratic political power. In addition, this responsibility, were it to exist, would divert legislative oversight and attention and strain public expenditures which might otherwise be invested in schools, parks, libraries, social programs, transportation, and other public infastructure.
- An armed populace decreases the overall occurrence of violent crime; widespread ownership and discreet carry of handguns by the law-abiding advances civilization by deterring assault, bullying, mayhem, robbery, rape, and murder.
- Gun control laws have a disproportionate effect on the freedoms of the law-abiding as criminals are willing to break the law to acquire, possess, and use guns.
- Carrying a firearm provides the means to make oneself safer.
- An armed populace is a deterrent to the excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution by the people is a check and balance against an abusive totalitarian government or "coup d'état".
- In the U.S., existing gun laws would be sufficient if the government were able and willing to enforce them.
- Increasing movement to blame violence in Mexico and Canada on American gun owners represents a political attack on the United States rather than a position with an empirical basis.
- That over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [3]
- Women are particularly at risk from violence and require access to guns as a means of self defense from stronger men, guns are an equalizing force. Gun control leads to higher rates of rape and sexual assault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
I think in some respects it does undermine the executive branches of government and their ability to carry out their duty to protect. But is it more that the inadequacy of such branches in achieving their duty partly responsible for the need for private arms?
I'm plagued by the old argument that less guns means less risks. If no-one is able to keep them, then no-one may be put at risk of misuse. But perhaps I'm fortune to live in a relatively safe country, I dont have to lock my door at night, so what can I understand of the risks and needs of protection.
Still, what if rather than thinking in terms of one persons right to maintain arms, thinking about the majority of people's right to be free from the threat of their use?
I wonder if everyone had to own a gun, what would happen.
