A Question a Week

[Mathew Steel 151]

As the title says, I'll be posting a new question in this thread each week. The questions may be controversial, but being a mature community, I'm sure there won't be arguing. Anyone who wishes to reply will have one week to do so and feel free to reply to one another and continue conversation from there! I'll be posting each question in a certain font and colour in order to make it easily accessible.?

 

I'll give a few points for each question and a quick opinion myself!

 

Also, the reason for this is to simply see different point of views, and at the same time, you're opinions will help me with my sociology work at school! So, thank you! :D

 

 

What Is Your View on Gun Control?

 

Personally, I have nothing wrong with people shooting as a sport. By this I mean clay pigeon shooting, or target shooting etc. I'm not 100% with hunting though. Of course there has been a debate with the USA vs the UK for gun control, and there is a correlation (not necessarily a link) between gun accessibility and death rates due to guns. Guns are commonly used as self defence in the USA, however, many mass shootings have also occurred in effect of the easy access to guns. The most common argument is "guns don't kill people, people do." What are your thoughts?

[EaglePrince 230]

Interesting idea for a thread. :)

 

I'd say that the best would be not to be able to get guns so easily. In my country one needs to do a lot of that in order to prove that he is mentally stable, etc... in order to have a gun. I don't know how it works now exactly, but when I was a kid I heard that they used to check your background (including your family) before you would be able to get a permission to have a gun. Now, if the system here in Serbia worked better, I would say this would be perfect. Unfortunately, you know that war was here during 90's, and I believe I am not mistaken that too many people here have guns illegally. Also, law enforcement is pretty bad over here - if someone threatens you, there is little police would do... Also, for this same reason, I believe that even nowadays those who shouldn't have weapons can buy them easily, and they would be checked for having those weapons only after attacking someone... One could report him, but still, people have little trust that police and other institutions are going to do their job...

 

So, in this case - being able to buy weapons legally wouldn't change much maybe - for those who buy it illegally, but it would be a difference for those who would only want to defend themselves.

 

I don't know what is better... The best would be if none would be able to get it legally but police and military, but still... Now when it is like this, I'd say the best would be as I described in the first paragraph. If those those who are not problematic and who don't have problematic families are able to get it, they would be able to defend themselves, because any of them would be ably to get a gun. Also, harder it is for the "bad guys" to get their weapons, the better it is.

 

So, being able to get weapons shouldn't be as easy as going to super market. Perhaps it would be perfect that the state encourage those law obeying people to buy guns.

 

 

Oh, and I don't want to be that it is "wild west" here in Serbia, but unfortunately, law enforcement here is pretty bad, and we don't have trust in our country to help us. We mostly compare this state of things to the one during SFR Yugoslavia. On one hand, that was bad - police could beat you up for no reason (because someone reported you for something), while today people can report someone for something, but they are worried that police wouldn't do the job, and that they would have even more problems than they used to have.

[Crusader1307 298]

Interesting question, Matthew. I suppose I can speak with some ?authority? on the matter (Ha). In The US, Firearms always have been a ?part? of our Culture (for bad and good). We here grew up (in my day), idolizing the ?Cowboy? and ?Soldier? and how they ?shot and killed? (for whatever cause). A common error for most Americans is that they do not quite understand HOW the 2nd Amendment to The US Constitution works. The 2nd Amendment states that all Americans have the right to ?bear Arms?. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of what this meant. Of course all Americans then HAD to own a firearm (whereas it was one's survival with regards to hunting food). The Amendment was designed to form a Militia System (in lieu of a standing Army at the time). All ?men? were expected to participate in (and fight) against Great Britain (The Revolution). I really don't think The Founding Fathers envisioned just how firearms would alter America.

Crime unfortunately will develop in any Society (as does the means with which criminals function). The average American (although very much aware of guns, massacres and such) ? does not own a firearm. The over zealous few who do are normally the ones who make ?The Press?. Many times they suffer from mental or emotional issues that should preclude them from gun ownership. However, EACH State has it's own regulations (due the the very few enforced Federally).

Having served in Public Safety (and a Military Veteran) ? for over 30 years, I have seen both sides of this problem. Most law abiding Citizens who get firearms are woefully untrained to use them for defense. A 1-week course in shooting is not the same as full tactical training. If your going to own a gun (I often say), realize what it is REALLY used for. If you do not wish to take the weapon (or proper training) seriously, why spend thousands of dollars to own one?

Another issue is assault rifles. MANY ?hunters? and the like own Military-type weapons and rifles. These were designed for one purpose ? killing other humans in combat (not bears and deer). Further, IF an intruder breaks into your home, IF you cannot defend yourself with a handgun, WHAT will an AK-47 do?

I believe that every American has the right to defend his or her property and family with a firearm IF THEY CHOOSE to. I further think that guns should be extremely regulated with regards to who can or can't own them (as well as stiff and harsh punishments for illegal ownership or their use in commission of a crime). AN American Comedian once said that the problem is not the gun.....it's the bullets. IF all bullets cost $5,000 to $10,000 (USD) EACH ? people would either stop using guns (or think twice about firing a bullet!)

[Strife 23]

warning I'm drnk. As far as hunting goes, it's an effort to control ppulation,hence the season si ts all in. So its a common argument that even if guns were illegal, or hard to obtain, crazy people are still going to obtain them either way.Grqoing up in the rural areas of Illinois in the US, ?I've never had an issue with guns, shooting a bunch myself,and hutning. But its a pwoerful feling shooting them. We had to obtain FOID cards, which are permits to acquire firearms. ?But as Crusader said, it s generlaly a one week thing, you just have to be eligible for it andyou obtain it, which basically just means no federal offenses and such. It's really easy to get, just know common sense

Politically, it's going to up up to debate for a long time, and I don't see it changing in the us. maybe military-grade weaposn might be banned at some point at some states, but people are going to constantly argue for 2nd amendment rights regardless of its original intention, especialy in midwest states, wher emos tof us are either repubilcan or libertarian, im libertarian and they're goign to continue to make tha ta point in their arguments.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Strife

[Lord_Chris 251]

That was a really interesting point @Crusader1307 - I've never seen it put like that before. If only all people were as wise! My main question is - why? Obviously with terrorism and the like on the rise, that may change this situation - but imagine a world without it. Why would an average American need a gun in the 21st Century, where no real threats (supposedly) exist?

 

Back to the question though, I can only speak for the UK, and what I think is best - and have seen here. Personally, I see no real reason for an average person to have a gun (with the exception of things such as air rifles or guns for bird shooting), because I feel this should be left to the professionals. It only aids terrorism and can be catastrophic in the hands of the wrong person.

 

But I'm also for tighter checks when acquiring a gun. I believe a person wishing to buy a gun must be cleared by a psychologist and have a full family background check, along with other health checks before they even consider the reason for wanting a gun. I also believe that you shouldn't just be able to "buy" shotgun licenses as you can now. I have been brought up in a society where there are no guns, but for me - I would not feel comfortable with people having guns on the street, or having the ability to buy them.

 

In simpler terms - I'd say that it should be very difficult for people to get their hands on guns, only for very essential purposes. I also think they should regularly have to have health checks every X years after their license would expire - and if they don't renew it, the gun would be taken from them.

[Mathew Steel 151]

Very interesting points by all of you. I truly wasn't expecting such great and thorough replies. So thank you all for that! :)

 

I've decided to grab a main or interesting point from each post.?

Eagle - Law enforcers not doing their job correctly

Crusader - I like your point about bullets being more expensive and your point about self defence

Strife - Your point about guns not being a problem EVERYWHERE is a good thing to consider

Chris - Also being from the UK, I also would feel very nervous or unsafe walking around in the streets knowing that the people I see could legally own a firearm

 

And so; consider these following points. There have been a number of cases of officers who can own weapons, killing innocent people, whether it's because of fear, reflex, or simply being in a position of power. For this, perhaps the Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo could be of help. The experiment proves that innocent and sane people can become very aggressive or simply completely change by being put in a position of power. For example, possessing a weapon.

 

Bullets being more expensive is a great idea. It would stop people shooting without a care. Maybe not in the police force, but for the average citizen, paying a load for a bullet, is going to make them use that bullet wisely and only in serious situations where they feel they're life is at stake.

 

Strife, I have friends in Canada and the US who all own a gun, and live in "rough" parts of their countries and have never had any problems with firearms and have never had to even shoot their weapons. So I can see the point that it is down to individuals.

 

As for the UK. I think the idea of self defence here is often misunderstood and people just accept whatever they've heard. So in case some of you aren't aware, in the UK:

- You have the right to defend yourself in a situation of fear or during an attack using any reasonable force

- The law doesn't expect you to be thinking sanely and correctly during such occasions, for example if your first reaction is to stab someone to defend yourself, the law will be in your favour

- The wrong idea that you may only defend yourself if an intruder is upstairs is false. If anyone trespasses in your house and refuses to leave, you may defend your home, again using any reasonable force

- An example, if someone runs at you with a knife and you're first reaction is to hit them across the head with a hard or sharp object, if the attack is prevented and the attacker stops, you must also stop. If you continue to hit the attacker whilst he's stopped, you can be punished the same way the attacker would have been.

[Crusader1307 298]

American too has a VERY similar "Reasonable Force" Code in force. Although the momentary "insanity" or "not in your right mind" clause is NOT a "defense". You can only use that force necessary to stop your attacker (even if it is deadly force in specific situations). Some States have very lax laws governing self-defense, others VERY tough (and sometimes they are written as if if provided more protection for the criminal than the victim!)

 

Trespass Laws are VERY different with regards to "deadly force" here. I have always admired the English System. I would unfortunately never work here. But much of "our" system is based off yours anyway.

 

Again VERY interesting topic Matthew....good job at spurring debate!?? :D

[Mathew Steel 151]

It's interesting to see how laws change over different societies. I guess it can be hard to prove that what you did was what YOU thought was reasonable at the time and didn't act on wanting revenge. However, again, the law will often be in your favour!

And thank you :)

Edited April 11, 2016 by Lord_Chris
Removed unnecessary quote of previous post

[Mathew Steel 151]

Nobody has replied for a few days now, so I'm assuming everyone has said their part :)

 

What is Your View on Free Speech?

Free speech has allowed for many great things. The ability to voice your opinion without being punished. To speak freely without fear. It wasn't until 1998 where the Human Rights Act was created, granting us the power of free speech. Although it has its advantages, many people use it as an excuse to be mean, racist or to simply be an annoyance. Even groups such as the KKK are allowed to exist as long as they do not act physically on their actions. There is a fine line between bullying and free speech, but in a society filled with prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination, it's hard to find people guilty of what is lawfully wrong. Whilst some people still can't grasp what is morally correct. what is your view on free speech? Should people allowed to say racist things freely? Should there be more rules? Should there be less rules? Or are you happy with the way it is right now?

[Crusader1307 298]

Yet again, The "Chair" recognizes "The Gentleman" from California..........................

 

Another of The US Constitutional Amendments (1st), that gives all Citizens the right to say what they wish, when they wish. Again, as a Veteran, I served to give ALL Americans this right (regards of the fact if I agree with it or not). That being said, Persons in disagreement with National Government or Policy also have the same right. However, when one advocates Sedition or the violent overthrow of Government, I take issue. I know in some Countries, such "speech and action" can warrant imprisonment and death. I don't advocate that. Exile maybe.........(Ha).

 

I have always applied the rule that one should "Let Them Rant On, So that Men Shall Know Them Mad". Rational and cool headed Persons (regardless of Country) cannot be harmed by this. As for "Radical Groups", as a "Southerner", I never paid The Klan any attention anyway. I do the same for the other "Pointy Head" Groups. They have only the power that our fear and ignorance gives them...........

 

 

Keep It Up, Matthew!

[Mathew Steel 151]

That's an interesting opinion, Crusader. See, I don't know where I stand on this. As someone who puts what's morally right over what people may consider the best thing to do, it's difficult. For example, someone arguing, I feel it's morally right to defend a friend, whilst others will say to keep out of it.?

The concept of free speech is good. However, the way people use it has changed (just reminded me of a topic for next week :D?). Too many times do people use free speech as a defence to be rude. Or "it's a free country" without actually understanding what that means.?

It's a pity I have to even ask this question but I feel it's one worth discussing. Keep adding to your discussions, everyone! :)

[Mathew Steel 151]

Your Views on Feminism

Quite a controversial topic. Many people believe feminism has lost its original idea. That the people that consider themselves feminists don't follow what they preach. Simply, you can argue feminism has become more about being more powerful than men, instead of equal. Some have even decided to call themselves "Equalists" as feminism has lost its integrity in today's society.

On the other hand, many still argue that feminism is still what it originally was and the people that don't follow the beliefs aren't feminists, regardless of if they refer to themselves as one.

Personally, I'm all for equal rights. However, I do agree that feminism has become about being higher up than men, due to a large amount of "feminists" behaving in such ways. I'm not saying all feminists, but a lot. What do you think?