Join our debate - ‘Guns serve no purpose in civilised society’

Civilised societies must use guns to bring civilisation to primitives.

That's how the New World was tamed by the Spanish and English, how some violent criminals (who don't understand the concept of civilised society) are taken down, and how we will probably have to deal with alien races if we want to ensure our own survival.

Props for the debate - it's a good idea.

Broadly I agree but in the devil's advocate tradition, one could argue that guns do serve a civilised purpose in society for the purpose of food production, land management and even security.

A - Food production
Very few reasonable people who are familiar with large-scale livestock management and slaughter would describe the practice as "civilised."
Between forced insemination, the mass-hatching yet systemic discarding of male chicks and the stressful abattoir process, the system is dire in need of reform. One potential option here, an eco-friendly one at that, would be a return to the hunting tradition.

B - Land management
Unpopular a view though it can be: sometimes population surges of deer, rabbits, badgers and grey squirrels (to name but a few) can cause substantial damage to our ecosystems. Whilst poisons can be an alternative, they act indiscriminately and could be considered wasteful as any meat yielded from the process would be spoiled by contamination from the toxin.

C - Security
First off, in any many countries, there are dangerous wild animals such as bears in the US and Canada, big cats in Africa etc. For rural areas to be safely visited/inhabited, one could argue a gun is necessary. Closer to home, however, civilised societies can only remain such if there are means of protecting the public from dangers/threats to their civilisation. Unless we can ensure that no individual is going to pose a violent threat to large groups of people using weapons, which we've now unfortunately learned includes vehicles, then there will always be a legitimate utilitarian argument that guns are useful tools for bringing those situations to a speedy end and minimising loss of life.

Would love to hear what others think!

I'm not advocating 0 guns. The military, specialist police and licensed shotguns and possibly licensed hunting rifles would be ok. That is broadly in line with your points. My issue, is that everyone having a gun regardless of nature, personality, training etc is lunacy and backing it up as they do in the US with a document dating back to 1791 is just plain wrong.

Ah, I see.
To be fair to myself "Guns serve no purpose in a civilised society" is a pretty absolutist statement - I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking you were proposing a gun-free society.

In fact, your actual debate proposition is less "we should have no guns in society" and more "not everyone should have a gun in society"

I'm not advocating 0 guns. The military, specialist police and licensed shotguns and possibly licensed hunting rifles would be ok. That is broadly in line with your points. My issue, is that everyone having a gun regardless of nature, personality, training etc is lunacy and backing it up as they do in the US with a document dating back to 1791 is just plain wrong.

well, not everyone can have a gun, there are pretty big checks that will happen if you buy a gun and for lots of reasons you can be denied a gun, do you not think that we should just have a far more intensive check to screen out those with issues

Yes this is a very good idea - in my village you have to carry a photograph of you at all times when you have a gun to show who you are.

What happens if you shoot someone? Do you just show your picture. Is the root of everything not education?

Yes when I show my picture they can see who I am so there is no trouble

Is that okay?

As a Brit I am hardly an expert on this, but I want to add my two cents;
Most homicides in the US are committed with illegal guns. This doesn't discount the gun control argument entirely, but it does show that strict gun control will not necessarily have a significant impact.
America's gun laws mean that they will never undergo what certain countries are right now. The EU has enforced the most ridiculous violations of freedoms that the people have no defense against, and in Venezuela the population are being brutalized by a dictator. Neither of these things will occur, at least to that extent, in America since the people have the means to fight back.
In regard to the recent Florida shooting, a school is a no-gun zone already, and the policemen outside did nothing. This is less of a problem with guns and a bigger problem with inefficient law enforcement. Why would I want a select few to be armed if they don't behave responsibly to ensure my safety?
There are more guns in America than people and a thriving market. This hardly makes America uncivilized.
So to sum up I cannot agree that guns serve no purpose, at least in America, since the law enforcement is clearly not capable of restricting gun use or ensuring the safety of the unarmed. With that in mind, the best thing for Americans to do in the interests of their safety would be to buy a gun for defense purposes.

Interesting points here - Surely the general populous not having guns stops these issues? We have a ban on guns in the uk and Theresa May is not a dictator (she may be other things) so I am not sure on that one.

I was referring to EU laws we thankfully won't have to abide for for much longer. I am not a Theresa May fan but I don't think of her as a dictator in anyway.

Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate, but hardly any problems with nutters using them to massacre people.