Gun Control

[MangaAddict]

Should gun laws be more strict? Should it be relatively dificult to obtain a gun? Or does everyone deserve the right to carry a gun for their protection?

[mexicanopunk]

i think people have the right 2 carry a gun for protection nothing other than that
specially 2 protect your family
my dad and my grandpa both keep a loaded revolver under thier pillows everynite while they're sleeping

[Excel-Kleinwald]

It is usually an unwise idea to reveal where your firearms are...

But I believe that everyone has the right to own a means to defend themselves but unfortunately you can't prove whether they would use it wisely. I do not believe anyone who has a record of serious crimes that usually involve inflicting harm upon others should be able to carry a firearm.

[gr1mmy]

I think people can wield firearms, but have repeated evaluations to make sure they don't abuse them.

[Sniper]

Well, Excel-Kleinwald has his wish. It is illegal for anyone convicted of a felony to own a firearm.

I think people have a right to defend themselves, but only to an extent. You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself, and you don't go hunting with an uzi. Anything fully-auto should be banned, since it was designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people quickly. I believe you should be able to own
1) pistols
2) shotguns
3) hunting rifles

Any of those are sufficient for self-defense or hunting. Anything else is excessive and unnecessary.

[`dead]

It doesn't matter if something is illegal, people will still do it.

case and point: marijuana.

I think we should have stricter punishment for illegal possession of firearms though. Like cutting off someone's hand.

I think that would be a pretty good deterrent imo

[Excel-Kleinwald]

Great, revert to barbarism, that is a great solution. Look the excuse that people will do it even if it is illegal doesn't matter, it will at least serve as a detterent as well. I agree with Sniper about the full-auto firearms, there is no point for you to have a weapon like that unless the country is invaded.

[sorceritza]

Actually, in an ideal world, noone should need a firearm... or any other weapon for that matter

[Excel-Kleinwald]

Yes, that is an ideal world, not ours...

[sorceritza]

I'm the optimistic type... always :)

[Excel-Kleinwald]

Maybe so, but this is a debate thread on the current world situation, you could state your opinion on the current world and we can debate that.

[negitoro]

All handguns should be illegal.

Handguns serve no purpose other than the ability to conceal them. Isn't this why nearly all gun related crime involves handguns? You never hear a gang-related shooting where some kid shot another kid with a hunting rifle outside a club or a mugger holding people up with a shotgun.

Eliminate handguns and you eliminate the majority of gun crime.

[`dead]

Great, revert to barbarism, that is a great solution. Look the excuse that people will do it even if it is illegal doesn't matter, it will at least serve as a detterent as well. I agree with Sniper about the full-auto firearms, there is no point for you to have a weapon like that unless the country is invaded.

I think barbarism is a f'ing great idea in this case.

It's a clear, concise and extremely effective option. And it's not like we're giving them the death penalty or anything.

And legality is only really a deterrent to fundamentalists. It's true.

[`dead]

Maybe so, but this is a debate thread on the current world situation, you could state your opinion on the current world and we can debate that.

Coloring inside the lines is such a bore. I think their comment was a perfectly valid contribution to the topic on hand.

[Excel-Kleinwald]

First of all watch the swear words. Secondly, death penalty is a permanent solution, and so is barbarism (in the case we're talking about). Yes it is effective but we are in a world where we are trying to work towards rehabilitation rather than just punishment. Also, though I understand that most of us would like an ideal world and such, we just don't have that and our world was what we were debating about. Ah well, to each his own then.

[Useless]

i think when a person is of legal age they should have the right to bear arms
of course if they do something illegal or something proves untrustworthy or incapable of using them or with like a mental retardation then they should not be able to have them.

[MangaAddict]

I think anyone with a criminal history (felonies and stuff) and any mental illness should not be allowed to get a gun. I think that before you are allowed to purchase a gun there should be a very strict background check. Also, people who own guns should have to renew their licenses just as much as police officers do which I hear is fairly often. And I dont agree that there should be guns in the same house as children unless they are locked up tight (and even then you cant guarantee anything). And I think only handguns and hunting guns (not knowlegeable in gun names :) ) should be allowed to the public. Anything else is not neccessary...

[x04ty29er]

The thing is, there already run background checks on people before they are allowed to buy guns. As you said, people with a violent criminal record and history of mental illness are not allowed to acquire a gun, it is law already. However, background checks that gun dealers run sometimes don't give as much information as it should, as problems arise. Also, there is the black market. That isn't really regulated by any laws..........

[MangaAddict]

I think the police should run extensive background checks. And theres nothing we can do about the black market. We can only hope the govenment is doing its job and protecting us... that makes me laugh.

[x04ty29er]

So you think that every time someone tries to buy a gun, the dealer should first confer with the police and receive an ok before moving on? That would work very well to fix the background check issues, but it would also take up valuable police time and make everything a lot more work for everyone.

Government? Protect us?

[Useless]

well i'd say that a person needs to go to the police or local government or whatever and get checked to see if they can buy a gun
then they get a card or something that allows them to buy it
and government protecting us?
hehehe...good one

[Excel-Kleinwald]

The whole point of the second amendment was so we could arm ourselves and overthrow an unlawful government anyway. And are you insinuating that the government doesn't protect us? I would like to see you make that argument.

[Useless]

umm i just did?
and anyways....that was a more sarcastic comment...though i shouldnt have expected anyone to realize that as its the internet and there is no tone to typing.....im just stating the incompetency of the current president....

and yes that was the point of the second amendment but there are some exceptions....just as you cannot curse here even though we reserve the right to free speech

[Excel-Kleinwald]

You act as if the president is the only part of the government that has any say whatsoever.

Also I wasn't arguing with anything I was just stating a fact

[SilverKunai]

.....Why not we have something like Bullet Control? If we stop citizens from having bullets, then a gun would be pretty useless. You could probably throw it...but it wouldn't kill on sight..

That idea seems a little stupid and simple though.

[Useless]

ummm wow...i like that idea....
and its cool how u can be serious yet funny....
and E-K.....i said it was a sarcastic comment meaning and i didnt actually mean that...its just becuase of the president that....this doesnt even matter...i get riled up over the president hence my avoidance of the thread on him.....so im just gonna stop and leave it with this complex and confusing tirade..

[negitoro]

and yes that was the point of the second amendment but there are some exceptions....just as you cannot curse here even though we reserve the right to free speech

That's not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech does not mean I can say anything I like whenever I like.

Freedom of speech means I can make any argument or hold any viewpoint or opinion and still be able to express that opinion without fear of being censored by the government. Even the laws governing free speech don't include the usage of obscene language.

Besides, when you're on OneManga, you're governed by private rules as set by a private party as a requirement of being able to post here. It's not an exception to freedom of speech.

[Qcks]

I voted that for not everyone having them.

Specifically, i don't believe people with a proven record of violent crime should be allowed to own a fire arm.

Beyond that i'm completely against all forms of gun control, as it's unconstitutional. While the wording of the constitution doesn't explicitly state the right to bear arms as the purview of the private citizen, it's implicit within the context of it's drafting.

Thomas Jefferson did not draw the ideas for the US constitution out of thin air. He was a contemporary of many skilled political philosphers. One of those Philosphers was a man known as Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes wrote extensively about the rights of the governed and the government. In his writings, Hobbes equated the ability to take life with the right to rule, but maintained that each person is created equally because a gun allows a small person the ability to take the life of a big person.

Under that context, the right to bear arms is implicit within the US constitution. So i'm clear, criminals lose many constitutional rights.

[negitoro]

All forms of gun control are unconstitutional? I don't believe that at all. If this was the case, I'd constitutionally entitled to carry nuclear weapons or mount an anti-aircraft cannon to my car. You're limited to what kind of arms you can bear for very good reason.

And while the constitution does defend the rights to bear arms, is this still relevant to today's world? With the way the world is, does anyone actually believe owning a gun is any sort of protection from their own government? From big corporate interests?

The gun isn't the powerful symbol it used to be and that's not the way things happen anymore. You don't overthrow governments by force in America. There's tons of dissatisfaction with the way our government is run but when's the last time sometime took a militia to it? The US will not collapse into government oppression and people will not run amok violating your rights and property simply because you don't own a gun.

What is constitutionally acceptable changes with the times. Think about how many Amendments came and went without women being allowed to vote. Why should the right to bear arms be any different?

It's only different because the gun lobbyists say it is.

[urburstingmybubble]

umm well i live in england so im not to up to date with american gun laws
but this is the only topic which is closest to what i want to say,
im not going to talk about guns but knifes, in england there is a huge rise in knife crime, espically in cities, we had just had a summer of knife crime with people getting killed nearly every 2 weeks or so.
something that really shocked the nation was an 11 year old boy getting shout in the back by rival gangs just because he was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. i therefore think the punishment for carrying knifes/guns should be really harsh, not the chopping off the hand, but should be a really long sentence. basically i think no one but the police or forces should possess guns

[takachi]

raise the price on bullets!! ^_^

10000$ per bullet...... that will f*ck gun owners up ^_^

[MangaAddict]

That would never happen. This is the debate thread not the spammy game section, Takachi...

@Urburstingmybubble, I dont think theres anything anyone can do about knives. Any pointy, sharp object can be used as a weapon. In your case, its more like you need violence control...

[skyofdreams]

Lol, I remember that joke from Chris Rock.

I used to think Gun Control worked. But after reading up the facts and what people have said, it's useless. Overall fact is that people kill people. Guns are merely tools to kill. As some have said, such as England, knives are being used to kill in the absence of guns.

Next fact: England and Japan, despite the fact they have banned the right to possess guns, crimes are not any much lower. On the other hand, in Switzerland, where EVERYONE is required to have guns (For national defense), the crime rate is fairly low. This disproves the misconception that the amount of guns is correlated with the amount of crimes in a country.

Next, assualt rifle bans have no effect to curb crime. Most crimes are committed with Handguns where they are concealable. There isn't as much legislation on that. Second, most guns used for crime are obtained illegally. Taking out the legal means of obtaining a gun doesn't stop the fact people are obtaining it illegally. Jacking up prices on bullets won't work either if they are not obtained through legal means.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think people should possess guns as well, but there needs to be more innovative ways of dealing with this issue other than just banning everything. I think the underlaying problem is more with culture of a country rather than the actual killing tools (guns) itself. (By culture, I mean how people think of violence, how they naturally react to certain things. These are sometimes different with each country)

[Sniper]

I support the second amendment. That said, I don't believe our forefathers intended that everyone be able to always use every weapon ever. Remember, what they meant by arms was muskets. I doubt they could invision tanks, machine guns, and bombs. Anything full-auto is just stupid. They were designed for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people very quickly. You don't need an AK for hunting. What should be allowed:

handguns for self-defense
hunting rifles
shotguns for both defense and hunting
bows and arrows.

any other gun (or bow) is rather useless unless you want to kill someone.

[negitoro]

I used to think Gun Control worked. But after reading up the facts and what people have said, it's useless. Overall fact is that people kill people. Guns are merely tools to kill. As some have said, such as England, knives are being used to kill in the absence of guns. The flipside is that when people knife each other, innocent bystanders are in far less danger. The difficulty in stabbing someone is also much greater than shooting someone. Do you think that Columbine would've happened if the kids just went around stabbing kids? I doubt they'd get as far before being tackled and disarmed.

Even the case in England, the increase in knife crime is property crimes like muggings. This could be due to many differing reasons, including social problems. Knife homicides haven't necessary increased and I think the general trend in the UK is still that crime overall is decreasing.

Next fact: England and Japan, despite the fact they have banned the right to possess guns, crimes are not any much lower. On the other hand, in Switzerland, where EVERYONE is required to have guns (For national defense), the crime rate is fairly low. This disproves the misconception that the amount of guns is correlated with the amount of crimes in a country.Crime rates are not necessarily tied to gun ownership but there's other statstics that suggest the states with lax gun laws also have higher rates of gun related violence. Switzerland's gun ownership laws are also relatively strict on handgun ownership and their gun are military issue and are subject to regular inspection for unauthorized use.

The fact is, the United States has relatively loose gun control laws amongst industrialized countries and also one of the highest gun related homicide rates.

Second, most guns used for crime are obtained illegally. Taking out the legal means of obtaining a gun doesn't stop the fact people are obtaining it illegally.That could be said of any contraband. If this was the case, I think they'd never bust a drug dealer.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think people should possess guns as well, but there needs to be more innovative ways of dealing with this issue other than just banning everything. I think the underlaying problem is more with culture of a country rather than the actual killing tools (guns) itself. (By culture, I mean how people think of violence, how they naturally react to certain things. These are sometimes different with each country)I agree that there's underlying social problems that involve more than just the weapons available. But at the same time, while those problems are occuring and may or may not be fixed, you have to minimize the ability of these people to commit their crimes and reduce their ability to cause harm.

[skyofdreams]

The flipside is that when people knife each other, innocent bystanders are in far less danger. The difficulty in stabbing someone is also much greater than shooting someone. Do you think that Columbine would've happened if the kids just went around stabbing kids? I doubt they'd get as far before being tackled and disarmed.

Even the case in England, the increase in knife crime is property crimes like muggings. This could be due to many differing reasons, including social problems. Knife homicides haven't necessary increased and I think the general trend in the UK is still that crime overall is decreasing.


Yea, less collateral damage. But Columbine happened because of underlying social and psychological issues with the shooters. In my opinion, "prevention is the best cure" for problems like these. By "prevention" I mean the prevention of the actual problems (psychological and social) instead of the symptoms (guns, shooting, and the aftermath).

And the guns were obtained not through legal means in that incident, which further proves my point. You might be able to prevent access to guns if you outlaw gun shows though, which is where the shooters bought their guns. But there are other issues with that involving the second amendment. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre)

As it stands, I find it almost impossible to imagine the scenerio of the Columbine kids only having knives. Guns are quite imbeded in the American culture. (More so in the Midwest, it's apparent throughtout the country to some extent) Some people do value their guns and I think it's almost impossible to remove guns from every faucet of society in the United States to the extent the Columbine kids would only be using knives for their twisted plans.


Crime rates are not necessarily tied to gun ownership but there's other statstics that suggest the states with lax gun laws also have higher rates of gun related violence. Switzerland's gun ownership laws are also relatively strict on handgun ownership and their gun are military issue and are subject to regular inspection for unauthorized use.

The fact is, the United States has relatively loose gun control laws amongst industrialized countries and also one of the highest gun related homicide rates.

Which leads me to the point I forgot to mention now that you mention it. People in Switzerland are trained how to properly handle a firearm. Most people who own a firearm (more so with handguns), don't have proper training. What makes Switizerland an exception? I really doubt it's just the regular inspection and strictness of handgun ownership. As I've said, guns that are used for most crimes are not obtained legally. They are either taken from someone that obtained it legally (such as a child finding their parent's gun), or obtained through illegal means (buying from an individual at a gun show without proper registration, blackmarket, etc). Gun control laws can only manage what is exchanged legally.


That could be said of any contraband. If this was the case, I think they'd never bust a drug dealer.


Exactly. Do you see the government 'winning the war on drugs'? Same can be said for gun control.


I agree that there's underlying social problems that involve more than just the weapons available. But at the same time, while those problems are occuring and may or may not be fixed, you have to minimize the ability of these people to commit their crimes and reduce their ability to cause harm.

Yea, I believe there should be a combination of 'some' gun control and fixing of the underlying social problems. I'm not advocating the absolute ban on gun control laws. In this case, I believe less is more. But as it stands, most gun control laws are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer dollars. They don't exactly remedy any violence that occurs.

Let's just say I agree with the 'ends' of your argument, but not the 'means' to get to the 'ends'. Let me rephrase it this way: If you can accept that guns will always be in this country, how do you prevent gun violence? What makes us and Switizerland different? (And go ahead and imagine if Switzerland's gun laws became American gun laws, would it make an impact gun violence?)

[DisturbedMind]

if you wanted needed cash, and figured you had to rob someone, would you go to the community where half the population carried handguns (meaning a 50% chance of immediate retribution), or would you go to the next county/city/state where they have outlawed guns for the people you are going to plan on robbing. There is a reason that criminals don't attack other criminals regularly....it's because criminals are armed and will use their weapons. So by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, all you are doing, in effect, is making it easier for criminals to pick out targets....because everyone could be a target then. This has actually been proven. In counties which were similar in all aspects for decades, and one increases gun control regulations, the neighboring counties violent gun crime decreases proportionally to the increase on the county which just enacted that legislation.

[negitoro]

Yea, less collateral damage. But Columbine happened because of underlying social and psychological issues with the shooters. In my opinion, "prevention is the best cure" for problems like these. By "prevention" I mean the prevention of the actual problems (psychological and social) instead of the symptoms (guns, shooting, and the aftermath).I agree that the cause of Colmbine wasn't about the guns but the guns were a tool that enabled them to do the damage that they did. And while I agree social problems beign fixed would improve the situation, social problems are far, far more complicated and difficult to fix than gun control laws. Think of it as tourniquet to quell the bleeding before you can get to a hospital.

And the guns were obtained not through legal means in that incident, which further proves my point. You might be able to prevent access to guns if you outlaw gun shows though, which is where the shooters bought their guns.I agree. If you enacted more strict gun laws, Columbine may not have happened. Sure, people can obtain guns illegally but stricter enforcement reduces the amount of guns out there which limits the ability to obtain them, even by illegal channels.

What makes Switizerland an exception? I really doubt it's just the regular inspection and strictness of handgun ownership.Like you said, social welfare, the prevalence of training and many other factors contribute to a low crime rate. Which means that their gun ownership vs. crime statistic isn't necessary a direct correlation.

As I've said, guns that are used for most crimes are not obtained legally. They are either taken from someone that obtained it legally (such as a child finding their parent's gun), or obtained through illegal means (buying from an individual at a gun show without proper registration, blackmarket, etc). Gun control laws can only manage what is exchanged legally.Strict gun control limits the amount of guns that are in the system. If you place a severe restriction on handgun ownership, there are less guns out there. Yes, you can still have them stolen, lost, etc but there's far less of them out there. And gun shows should be banned from sale - these should be industry trade shows, not a freakin' swap meet.

Exactly. Do you see the government 'winning the war on drugs'? Same can be said for gun control.Maybe they're not winning the war but can you imagine if they didn't enforce the law at all?

Yea, I believe there should be a combination of 'some' gun control and fixing of the underlying social problems. I'm not advocating the absolute ban on gun control laws. In this case, I believe less is more. But as it stands, most gun control laws are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer dollars. They don't exactly remedy any violence that occurs.I disagree. Gun control laws are only ineffective because they're done in the current halfassed and lax manner. Countries where guns are severely restricted have far less incidence of gun crime. Sure, violence still occurs but its much, much less likely that a school shooting would occur in, say, Japan or Hong Kong. Obviously enforcement dollars are much lower simply because there's very little to enforce.

Let's just say I agree with the 'ends' of your argument, but not the 'means' to get to the 'ends'. Let me rephrase it this way: If you can accept that guns will always be in this country, how do you prevent gun violence? What makes us and Switizerland different? (And go ahead and imagine if Switzerland's gun laws became American gun laws, would it make an impact gun violence?)I actually DON'T accept that guns will always be in this country. I've said before.. I think the right to bear arms is antiquidated and useless in this day and age. The original intention of that right has long been irrelevant.

[negitoro]

if you wanted needed cash, and figured you had to rob someone, would you go to the community where half the population carried handguns (meaning a 50% chance of immediate retribution), or would you go to the next county/city/state where they have outlawed guns for the people you are going to plan on robbing. There is a reason that criminals don't attack other criminals regularly....it's because criminals are armed and will use their weapons. So by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, all you are doing, in effect, is making it easier for criminals to pick out targets....because everyone could be a target then. This has actually been proven. In counties which were similar in all aspects for decades, and one increases gun control regulations, the neighboring counties violent gun crime decreases proportionally to the increase on the county which just enacted that legislation.

This scenario assumes the first person could get a gun in the first place. Place a severe restriction on handguns and the cost of obtaining one illegally skyrockets (simple economic theory). So now, if a guy is poor enough to need to rob someone, you've put that gun out of his price point. Or, heck, if he say, stole one, he could sell that handgun for more money than he could rob.

[Sniper]

I think that being able to own guns is ok. If you want to have a gun, fine. You can have A gun. But people don't need 250 different types of guns. No one needs an MG-42. No one needs an AK-47. These are not hunting guns, or self-defense. These are military tools for killing large numbers of people. Basic guns are ok, but there's no need for someone to have a sniper rifle. If guns were banned, we'd see a decline in gun related crimes. That's all there is too it. We need to fix the root cause of the crimes, but legalizing the tools for the crimes to take place just makes it easier.

[skyofdreams]

I agree that the cause of Colmbine wasn't about the guns but the guns were a tool that enabled them to do the damage that they did. And while I agree social problems beign fixed would improve the situation, social problems are far, far more complicated and difficult to fix than gun control laws. Think of it as tourniquet to quell the bleeding before you can get to a hospital.

Exactly. However, what I differ from you is that I feel that the emphasis of the problem is the social/psychological problems. Even though it is far more complicated, it does no good to avoid the core problem.


I agree. If you enacted more strict gun laws, Columbine may not have happened. Sure, people can obtain guns illegally but stricter enforcement reduces the amount of guns out there which limits the ability to obtain them, even by illegal channels.

Well this is where the government will have choose to be tough on the laws they enact or not have them at all. Frankly, lax enforcement the reason why gun control doesn't work. However, if you tighten up gun control enforcement, this again goes on a slippery slope of 'rights', which I don't feel like dwelling upon since I am almost indifferent to the 2nd amendment at this point.


Like you said, social welfare, the prevalence of training and many other factors contribute to a low crime rate. Which means that their gun ownership vs. crime statistic isn't necessary a direct correlation.

Exactly my point. The whole problem revolves other factors than just the guns themselves. And gun ownership vs. crime statistic non-correlation means that a lot of guns or a no guns at all does not affect the amout of violent crimes. (I'm not talking about deaths resulting from guns, but crimes.) You do realize this works against your argument?

Strict gun control limits the amount of guns that are in the system. If you place a severe restriction on handgun ownership, there are less guns out there. Yes, you can still have them stolen, lost, etc but there's far less of them out there. And gun shows should be banned from sale - these should be industry trade shows, not a freakin' swap meet.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html
(And keep in mind these statistics are ten years old; but I doubt the raw numbers change too much)
According to the above source, there are approximately 223,000,000 firearms in the US. (There's probably more now) This most likely excludes guns that were brought in illegally and guns that were self-made. Now tell me, how do we enforce the removal/inspection of every firearm from every gun owner (which is approximately 80 million gun owners)? I don't think it's quite tangible without forcing every individual owner to do so. I'd suspect there'd be a big problem with the enforcement itself. If anything, it'll be a phased out process that'll take a lot of time and money.

But yes, on the other note, I do agree on what you say about gun shows.


Maybe they're not winning the war but can you imagine if they didn't enforce the law at all?

I don't know... we'll be like Switzerland? lol, I can tell this is going to be a circular argument between us. I don't think we can exactly treat a contraband of firearms the same as a contraband of drugs. The potential for harm for firearms is much higher especially if they're illegal.


I disagree. Gun control laws are only ineffective because they're done in the current halfassed and lax manner. Countries where guns are severely restricted have far less incidence of gun crime. Sure, violence still occurs but its much, much less likely that a school shooting would occur in, say, Japan or Hong Kong. Obviously enforcement dollars are much lower simply because there's very little to enforce.

I agree, yet I disagree. I agree with the fact that they are ineffective because it's laxed and halfassed. I disagree because I believe the mindset of the people in Hong Kong and Japan are not the same as the people in America. I can't say for certain, but my guess is social/cultural upbringing of children/teenagers in Japan/Hong Kong would make them more likely to not choose the 'shoot-everyone-at-my-school' option. I'm making this guess based on my person experience since I'm Chinese (parents are from Hong Kong), and I live in the United States. So I can say that I have a bit of upbringing from both sides. However, again, you may be right, but I don't know that for sure at this point. (since I don't believe there are much studies looking at this angle of gun violence) The things I've seen or read, however, have lead me to believe this should be the reason more than the 'Less guns in a country equates to less deaths' hypothesis.


I actually DON'T accept that guns will always be in this country. I've said before.. I think the right to bear arms is antiquidated and useless in this day and age. The original intention of that right has long been irrelevant.

I know you said it before. However, despite how I think of guns, I believe it is an almost impossible task to get rid of every single gun in the United States. Yes, it's possible, if you violate some rights and get straight to it, but then that's another slipperly slope I'm not about to mess with. (2nd amendment, 9th amendment (Privacy), 5th and 14th Amendment (5th and 14th have ties to Property Rights))

If you value the rights instead and make comprimises, I believe it'll make more of a quicker impact than outright banning everything. Like I said, for the absolute ban to work, realistically, it'll take a lot of time, money and unnecessary grief and complaints.

As for the necessity of the 2nd amendment, I prefer to not think of its relevance in this debate. To me, whether it is constitituional or not, doesn't affect the fact that people commit crimes becuse of psychological/social problems. But yes, I can already see you're going to say "less guns will equal less collateral damage", I'll give you that. But I tend to think of that as a short term effect, while what I'm thinking of is of a much longer term effect and wider scope.

Let me put it this way: It'll take a long time to ban every 'legal' gun. It'll also take a long time fix psychological/social problems that lead to gun violence (let's say school shootings for now). Given the choice between the two, I'd choose psychological/social because it is more effective long term. I'd choose 'ban every legal gun' option if it could be implimented quickly (Done within a month or two without much legal problems) and could reduce gun violence in a year or two drastically. But... naaaah, I doubt that'll happen.
--------------

And to put things into perspective, here's an interesting tidbit involving guns and accidents: http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm
(Yes, I know this doesn't include crime, lol)

[akuma_river]

My policy on gun control is biased.

I live in the South, and people having guns is a form of protection.

I know the odds and the statistics and I know that the U.S. has a lower life expectacy rate than it should, because we kill each other more in car accidents, shootings, and murder.

I also know that we should have tougher gun control laws against those who have mental illness and criminal pasts. We should also make it harder for people to walk into gun shows and walk away with a gun with little to no past record search.

But having a gun is a form of protection. Not just against wayward villians out to kill ya either.

I live in the country, we have poisonous and dangerous animals and critters out here.

Waking up to find a six foot rattle snake in front of your car/truck is not unexpected. Having a wild dog follow you for a mile when you car breaks down isn't either. Coyotes, Skunks, Possums, etc.

We had a two foot cotton mouth in the house, we've had several rattle snakes in the house.

We have had on our property a six foot ratte snake. My brother shot and killed an eight foot snake in our back yard.

Gator's are rare, but they have been known to be in these parts.

My dad once picked up a guy in the middle of the night on the side of a country road walking because his truck quick on him. He profusely thanked my dad, sad he saved his life because for a half mile he could hear wild dogs walking behind him, a pack of them.

In our area, no one really locks their doors or cars. We have dogs that room leashless out here, and most people have guns. It's usually hunting riffles and not hand guns.

I personally am against the NRA. I think they have mainly lost their minds on some things. I am also against certain guns being allowed in citizen hands and I think they should be restricted...

So basically I'm for citizen ownership of guns but I think we need tighter and national gun laws.

[negitoro]

Exactly. However, what I differ from you is that I feel that the emphasis of the problem is the social/psychological problems. Even though it is far more complicated, it does no good to avoid the core problem. I don't think we necessarily differ. I agree with you that social problems is the root the the problem. My main point is that while social problems must be corrected, the problem is far more complicated and will take far greater changes than gun law changes. You mention multiples times that gun laws won't be easy to implement due to violations of various rights etc. But on the other hand, imbalance of income, issues with socail welfare and education, drugs, availability of psychiatric services, elimination of domestic violence etc etc are all necessary to reduce the level of crime yet are issues that no one has any easy solutions to, no one is willing to pay for and would involve far, FAR greater fundamental changes to the way the country and its people live and work. This change would involve far greater sacrifices. Taking away their guns would be small fry.

These are changes that could take decades to enact even if legislators had a clear plan in order to achieve it. So, in the meantime, you deal with gun crime with a stopgap mentality. Taking away the guns doesn't stop crime... but it reduces a criminal's ability to do damage.

It's sort of like, you have a child at a dinner party, he's angry you've denied him ice cream. He starts throwing things at everyone. What do you do? You don't try to teach him right from wrong and that it's impolite to throw his vegetables at your dinner guests until he stops throwing them. You take away stuff for him to throw and *then* you deal with the deeper issues.

Well this is where the government will have choose to be tough on the laws they enact or not have them at all. Frankly, lax enforcement the reason why gun control doesn't work. Absolutely. Gun control laws and their enforcement are laughable.

You do realize this works against your argument?I'm just saying that Switzerland's crime rate is irrelevant.

Now tell me, how do we enforce the removal/inspection of every firearm from every gun owner (which is approximately 80 million gun owners)? I don't think it's quite tangible without forcing every individual owner to do so. I'd suspect there'd be a big problem with the enforcement itself. If anything, it'll be a phased out process that'll take a lot of time and money. If the US gov't put its mind to it, it would be able to do it. The US gov't managed to phase out the usage of cars running on leaded fuel, mandated the nationwide retrofitting of all asbestos insulation and spearheaded the worldwide ban and elimination of DDT. Hell, Homeland Security alone has been granted more than enough power to confiscate all guns. All it needs is for someone to claim that terrorists and guns are somehow linked.

I don't know... we'll be like Switzerland? lol, I can tell this is going to be a circular argument between us. I don't think we can exactly treat a contraband of firearms the same as a contraband of drugs. The potential for harm for firearms is much higher especially if they're illegal. I don't think that's the case. Guns don't get more powerful as they're illegal. A gun is a gun. The only hope to reduce the influence of guns is to reduce their number and accessibility.

I can't say for certain, but my guess is social/cultural upbringing of children/teenagers in Japan/Hong Kong would make them more likely to not choose the 'shoot-everyone-at-my-school' option. You've never seen people at school pick fights? The only difference is that the American kids have access to guns. Even if a kid in Japan went crazy and tried to hit everyone in the hallway with a lead pipe or go crazy with a cleaver, do you think you'd hear about it in the media? Probably not because he'd probably injure one guy before someone managed to bring him down.

But yes, I can already see you're going to say "less guns will equal less collateral damage", I'll give you that. But I tend to think of that as a short term effect, while what I'm thinking of is of a much longer term effect and wider scope. And that's fine. If the gun ban serves to reduce the collateral damage, then isn't it's execution justified? A driveby or a school shooting or a gun mugging gone wrong that didn't happen because they couldn't get a gun.... these add up.

I'd choose 'ban every legal gun' option if it could be implimented quickly (Done within a month or two without much legal problems) and could reduce gun violence in a year or two drastically. But... naaaah, I doubt that'll happen.I agree social problems need to be tackled. But the difference between a gun ban and fixing social problems is that there's a clear cut way to do the gun ban and not even a clear idea how to solve the social problems.

And to put things into perspective, here's an interesting tidbit involving guns and accidents: http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm
(Yes, I know this doesn't include crime, lol)LOL This is statistics at its best. Twisted into saying something shocking but that makes no sense. For instance, doctors deal with numerous patients and do complicated and difficult procedures on them. So to make a better comparison, it's sort of like taking every gun in America, asking say, 30 people a day to handle them (~# of paitents per day) and then occasionally asking someone to shoot a can off the top of someone's head. LOL

[skyofdreams]

I don't think we necessarily differ. I agree with you that social problems is the root the the problem. My main point is that while social problems must be corrected, the problem is far more complicated and will take far greater changes than gun law changes. You mention multiples times that gun laws won't be easy to implement due to violations of various rights etc. But on the other hand, imbalance of income, issues with socail welfare and education, drugs, availability of psychiatric services, elimination of domestic violence etc etc are all necessary to reduce the level of crime yet are issues that no one has any easy solutions to, no one is willing to pay for and would involve far, FAR greater fundamental changes to the way the country and its people live and work. This change would involve far greater sacrifices. Taking away their guns would be small fry.

Actually, I believe the best way to start is the very foundation: Education and Outreach programs to make sure kids stay in school. I don't feel like going into specifics, but I feel lack of education and knowledge of drugs, etc, are prime reasons why people stray into problems. Rehabilitation in prisons is another way of cutting the recitivism rate, but that is another story that doesn't involve guns.

Tackling the biggest pieces of the problem slowly solves the smaller more narrow problems.


These are changes that could take decades to enact even if legislators had a clear plan in order to achieve it. So, in the meantime, you deal with gun crime with a stopgap mentality. Taking away the guns doesn't stop crime... but it reduces a criminal's ability to do damage.

Indeed, however, I think I've said taking away every gun is implausible and takes a long time. I will say why that is later.


It's sort of like, you have a child at a dinner party, he's angry you've denied him ice cream. He starts throwing things at everyone. What do you do? You don't try to teach him right from wrong and that it's impolite to throw his vegetables at your dinner guests until he stops throwing them. You take away stuff for him to throw and *then* you deal with the deeper issues.


"He starts throwing things at everyone"

This single sentence changes the very fabric of your analogy to this debate we're talking about. Of course if gunfire was happening AS we speak, we'd disarm them THEN rehabilitate them. However, it's not the case.


I'm just saying that Switzerland's crime rate is irrelevant.

I believe the point was that amount of guns don't correlate with the crime rate. Which means 'a lot' or 'zero' guns will not affect the amount of crimes. As for Switzerland's crime rate, it is relevant. Switzerland, as you said, has "social welfare, the prevalence of training and many other factors contribute to a low crime rate". It is these other factors that we need to work on as well to reduce crimes, which will reduce gun crimes as well.


If the US gov't put its mind to it, it would be able to do it. The US gov't managed to phase out the usage of cars running on leaded fuel, mandated the nationwide retrofitting of all asbestos insulation and spearheaded the worldwide ban and elimination of DDT. Hell, Homeland Security alone has been granted more than enough power to confiscate all guns. All it needs is for someone to claim that terrorists and guns are somehow linked.

I don't know how to phrase this, but most of the examples you raised were dependant on the government. leaded fuel would not make it to the gas stations if the fuel was not allowed into the country. Asbestos insulations would not be produced anymore and the removal is generally not opposed. Again, with DDT, the removal was not generally opposed.

With guns, however, guns last a longer than any of the mentioned products. Guns can be produced domestically by almost anyone. And the opposition of the removal of guns is likely high.

But yes, if the US gov't does put its mind to it, it'll be able to do it. But it isn't as easy as it seems.

[quote]
I don't think that's the case. Guns don't get more powerful as they're illegal. A gun is a gun. The only hope to reduce the influence of guns is to reduce their number and accessibility.

The comparison was with drugs. Guns > Drugs in terms of potential for harm.


You've never seen people at school pick fights? The only difference is that the American kids have access to guns. Even if a kid in Japan went crazy and tried to hit everyone in the hallway with a lead pipe or go crazy with a cleaver, do you think you'd hear about it in the media? Probably not because he'd probably injure one guy before someone managed to bring him down.

Actually, the media would probably report it. I watch Hong Kong news quite often and if something like that does happen, it'll be on the news.

And not to sound racially biased or anything, but I frankly have not seen much Asian kids start fights. Not to sound racist, but based on my personal observation back when I was in high school, most fights are started by white, hispanic or black students. (Our high school's make up is around 35% Asian, 25% White, 20% Hispanic, 10% black, and 10% other). I've seen plenty of these fights for sure.


And that's fine. If the gun ban serves to reduce the collateral damage, then isn't it's execution justified? A driveby or a school shooting or a gun mugging gone wrong that didn't happen because they couldn't get a gun.... these add up.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that we should have no gun control laws at all. Again, all those crimes most likely are committed with an 'illegal' gun. Gun bans only reach to legal markets as I've said before. And I know you'll need an *extremely* strict gun control enforcement to pull it off, but the likeliness of that happening is also extremely low.


I agree social problems need to be tackled. But the difference between a gun ban and fixing social problems is that there's a clear cut way to do the gun ban and not even a clear idea how to solve the social problems.

Yea, a clear cut way to do it, but its effects are not guaranteed. I do believe that gun restrictions ought to be tightened up, and certain guns should obviously should be banned and strictly enforced. But as for that grey area of handguns, shotguns (well almost not really), and hunting rifles, I'll leave it alone.


LOL This is statistics at its best. Twisted into saying something shocking but that makes no sense. For instance, doctors deal with numerous patients and do complicated and difficult procedures on them. So to make a better comparison, it's sort of like taking every gun in America, asking say, 30 people a day to handle them (~# of paitents per day) and then occasionally asking someone to shoot a can off the top of someone's head. LOL

lol, I knew you'd get a kick out of it somehow.

[DisturbedMind]

This scenario assumes the first person could get a gun in the first place. Place a severe restriction on handguns and the cost of obtaining one illegally skyrockets (simple economic theory). So now, if a guy is poor enough to need to rob someone, you've put that gun out of his price point. Or, heck, if he say, stole one, he could sell that handgun for more money than he could rob.

I was using that as a "place yourself in the criminal's shoes" argument. As in which person would you rather try and rob. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They are already criminals....what do you plan on doing, making gun ownership a capitol offense? If they are planning on robbing/mugging/burgling they will be armed. But do you think they rob the guy with "born to hunt" on his bumper sticker and an NRA trophy on the mantle, or the one with the "peace" sticker and a "vote Kucinich/Kerry/Clinton/Obama" planted on their lawn. And you also assume that the individual who would use the gun illegally was going to purchase it legally. I have a strange feeling that if someone thought they were gonna have to use a gun, the last thing they would do is have it registered.

Nah, I'll just say it. The only person who would ever buy a gun legally, is someone who had no plans on using it for anything except protection. After all, there is such a thing as the black market. And no, I don't really support most of the NRA positions, just using it for emphasis.

[negitoro]

I was using that as a "place yourself in the criminal's shoes" argument. I AM placing myself in the criminal's shoes. Who robs people? Petty criminals who need quick cash. They buy a gun for a few hundred from a pawn shop, shady dealer, etc and go do their business.

What happens when handguns are made rare and illegal? It's hard to acquire them and prices go up. It's one thing to buy a gun for a few hundred... how many petty criminals would pay a few thousand for use in robbing a liquor store or mugging someone? None. Because you'll never break even.

Now, then let's say he finds or steals a gun. That gun is now worth a few thousand on the black market. Why would he mug people for 80 bucks in cash, when he can sell it to someone for a few thousand?

It's pretty simple. Less supply will always drive up price. Higher prices will reduce their demand. Basic economic theory.

As in which person would you rather try and rob. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They are already criminals....what do you plan on doing, making gun ownership a capitol offense? It doesn't have to be a capital offense. 10-20 years for handgun ownership or distribution would be enough. The idea isn't to reduce criminals - like me and skyofdreams have been saying, that comes with solving social problems... this is to reduce the ability of the criminals to do damage.

If they are planning on robbing/mugging/burgling they will be armed. But do you think they rob the guy with "born to hunt" on his bumper sticker and an NRA trophy on the mantle, or the one with the "peace" sticker and a "vote Kucinich/Kerry/Clinton/Obama" planted on their lawn. How many people use guns for burglary anyway? Home invasions are relatively rare in comparison to breaking and entering. Muggings usually rely on an element of surprise. Anyway, my point is, severe restriction of guns would eliminate these criminals altogether. It's much harder to be a violent criminal with a pocket knife.

And you also assume that the individual who would use the gun illegally was going to purchase it legally. I have a strange feeling that if someone thought they were gonna have to use a gun, the last thing they would do is have it registered.Read my above point on what happens when illegal gun prices go up.

Nah, I'll just say it. The only person who would ever buy a gun legally, is someone who had no plans on using it for anything except protection. After all, there is such a thing as the black market. I agree. Which is why you have to reduce the size of the black market. You stop introducing new guns in the system, take out as many as you can and then remove them as you arrest criminals. Eventually, there are fewer guns left and those command a high price. You take them out of the hands of 90% of the criminals (the remaining 10% are the ones who are unlikely to ever have anything to do with you).

[negitoro]

Actually, I believe the best way to start is the very foundation: Education and Outreach programs to make sure kids stay in school. I don't feel like going into specifics, but I feel lack of education and knowledge of drugs, etc, are prime reasons why people stray into problems. Tackling the biggest pieces of the problem slowly solves the smaller more narrow problems. Like I said, I agree with the fundamental theory. It's just that none of these are new approaches. How many anti-drug campaigns have we seen, for example? It's not easy to solve socail problems (esp. without proper govenrment funding).

I'm not saying we don't tackle these issues. I'm saying disarm the criminals while you're working on this process. Reducing the guns would see a far more immediate impact than social policy reform (which would take decades, if ever).

"He starts throwing things at everyone"

This single sentence changes the very fabric of your analogy to this debate we're talking about. Of course if gunfire was happening AS we speak, we'd disarm them THEN rehabilitate them. However, it's not the case. They ARE firing right now. Don't school shootings happen often enough right now? This is an IMMEDIATE threat. We're not talking years or decades... someone just shot up a school a few MONTHS ago. The metaphor isn't meant to be taken as someone is shooting someone else at this very instant (although it could very be happening somewhere).

It is these other factors that we need to work on as well to reduce crimes, which will reduce gun crimes as well.I agree. I'm just saying social problems are bad enough that you should take the guns now so that during the decades of social reform, the guns do less damage. Heck, maybe in 40 years when social problems are eradicated the gun laws can be loosened.

I don't know how to phrase this, but most of the examples you raised were dependant on the government. leaded fuel would not make it to the gas stations if the fuel was not allowed into the country. Asbestos insulations would not be produced anymore and the removal is generally not opposed. Again, with DDT, the removal was not generally opposed.Exactly. So ban bullets. Outlaw civilian gun manufacturing. And as for DDT removal - you bet it was opposed. How many people suffered due to the sudden loss of their affordable and effective pesticide? But the US-led WHO eliminated it anyway.

With guns, however, guns last a longer than any of the mentioned products. Guns can be produced domestically by almost anyone. And the opposition of the removal of guns is likely high. Sure they last long but limit the supply and eliminate illegal firearms as you progress and eventually you're left with a smaller and smaller pool. Guns can be handmade but make it illegal to do so and 99% people stop doing it. It's also really easy to make homemade bombs... but very few people do it.

Resistance is an issue I admit.. but George Bush was opposed by half the population on the war in Iraq and he still went ahead and did it anyway. I'm sure a lot of legislation is unpopular... doesn't mean the government can't go ahead and do it.

And not to sound racially biased or anything, but I frankly have not seen much Asian kids start fights. I grew up in Hong Kong. I can tell you there's bad kids in HK just as much as there are in the States. Asians are just people too... Remember the Virgina Tech shooter was an Asian guy.

Again, all those crimes most likely are committed with an 'illegal' gun. Gun bans only reach to legal markets as I've said before. And I know you'll need an *extremely* strict gun control enforcement to pull it off, but the likeliness of that happening is also extremely low.Read my reply to Disturbedmind to see what I think will happen to illegal markets when strict gun control is enforced. And the likeliness of it happening is up to the government's commitment to it. Like I said, no one can really oppose the government if they set out to do something.

But as for that grey area of handguns, shotguns (well almost not really), and hunting rifles, I'll leave it alone. If anything handguns should be banned. No one really needs a gun capable of being concealed for defense.

[skyofdreams]

Like I said, I agree with the fundamental theory. It's just that none of these are new approaches. How many anti-drug campaigns have we seen, for example? It's not easy to solve socail problems (esp. without proper govenrment funding).

I'm not saying we don't tackle these issues. I'm saying disarm the criminals while you're working on this process. Reducing the guns would see a far more immediate impact than social policy reform (which would take decades, if ever).

Anti Drug campaigns were weak. They could be stronger. As you say, if the government put its mind to it, 'anything' can happen. It's current lack of focus because of lobbist and personal interests are the biggest obstacles for anything to happen. This includes the proposition for banning all guns.


They ARE firing right now. Don't school shootings happen often enough right now? This is an IMMEDIATE threat. We're not talking years or decades... someone just shot up a school a few MONTHS ago. The metaphor isn't meant to be taken as someone is shooting someone else at this very instant (although it could very be happening somewhere)

I think you missed what I meant entirely. I meant 'literally'. You still are meaning 'figuratively'. I understand the magnitude of a school shooting, but you are taking them like they 'common occurances'. School shootings, I know, are on a rise, but they are still rare.

I'll refer you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_related_attacks

A guy with a knife was able to kill 8 people before he was stopped in Japan. Sure says something about 'intent' more than 'weapon'. And the list while is long, starts from early 1900s. There are only handful of cases since the 90s in the United States. This is not uncontrolled prolific violence. Again, school shootings are a weak case for banning guns for they are more dependent of psychological and social issues than the reliance of the 'amount' of guns in the system.


Exactly. So ban bullets. Outlaw civilian gun manufacturing. And as for DDT removal - you bet it was opposed. How many people suffered due to the sudden loss of their affordable and effective pesticide? But the US-led WHO eliminated it anyway.

lol, the difference is, there wasn't an 'amendment' backing up DDT.


Sure they last long but limit the supply and eliminate illegal firearms as you progress and eventually you're left with a smaller and smaller pool. Guns can be handmade but make it illegal to do so and 99% people stop doing it. It's also really easy to make homemade bombs... but very few people do it.

Resistance is an issue I admit.. but George Bush was opposed by half the population on the war in Iraq and he still went ahead and did it anyway. I'm sure a lot of legislation is unpopular... doesn't mean the government can't go ahead and do it.

So what kind of government is supposed to do this? A totalitarian? Republic? Forcing the issue is no way inciting change. Backlash is the biggest problem to your "we'll-enforce-it-anyways" ideas. Like I said, enforcement IS the biggest issue. And this is not easy to enforce with 223 million guns spread around the US especially more so in the Rural areas. (I mean more spread out. Urban areas are more concentrated and easier to find, but still tough.) It's not as easy as putting our minds to it. It's logistically and resource heavy.

And this progression of phasing out of guns... it's why I said it'll take a long time to commit to. How long they'll commit to it depends on how strict the enforcement is.

And... George Bush was an idiot and was serving his own agenda. If we had a bunch of them in congress, we'd be screwed. Although, there are a bunch of idiots in congress too, lol, so we're screwed anyways.


I grew up in Hong Kong. I can tell you there's bad kids in HK just as much as there are in the States. Asians are just people too... Remember the Virgina Tech shooter was an Asian guy.

I know there are bad kids in HK. If you haven't noticed, there's bad kids everywhere of every ethnicity. However, I was saying it based my personal experience. And in my personal experience (geographically from Bay Area and San Diego), again, most asian kids that immigrated are fairly mellow. Can't say the same for ABCs, or other people born in the US but they're fairly nice for the most part. Again, it's a generalization, but a fairly accurate one. I'm not saying ALL asians are better. I'm just speaking of tendencies.

In addition, my statement was on 'inciting school fights'. Not school shootings. And I also remember the other list of white guys that were shooters as well. Most school shooters are already psychologically skewed and probably happens more so in white and asians than anything. The mindset for picking a fight and shooting up the school is different. There's a difference between how many bad kids there are and how many psychos there are.


Read my reply to Disturbedmind to see what I think will happen to illegal markets when strict gun control is enforced. And the likeliness of it happening is up to the government's commitment to it. Like I said, no one can really oppose the government if they set out to do something.

Again, your assumption is that guns will be rare to find. It's rarity is why the prices might go up. But doesn't change the fact they are obtained illegally. I don't think the ideals of normal economics can be applied to black markets as easily. If you place a legal restriction and ban on guns, it is not a necessary cap on production and proliferation of guns in the black market.

And what if they are not hard to find? To make them exceeedingly rare to find from today's 223 million+ firearms is not an easy task. An extremely costly enforcement will be necessary. Unlike UK, our borders streach for an extremely long distance. And how do you enforce homemade weapons? You can't really enforce it unless you violate everyone's privacy. And you can't also prevent them from making them by banning the materials they use. The commitment they use for doing this will be *extremely* high and it's rare for the government to have any commitment to any one thing. (not saying it doesn't happen though)

I'd rather like to see the government's same commitment and costs that you mention be directed towards the education system than banning guns. If you want to talk about a real crisis, that's one of the ones I can name.


If anything handguns should be banned. No one really needs a gun capable of being concealed for defense.

Yea, I'm sure they'd want a shotgun or rifle: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zepAp5qQiDw

I lol'ed at this video.

But yes, I agree, they 'ought' to be banned.

However, it does seem rural places still have need for guns from what some of the other people have said.

[DisturbedMind]

I bet everyone against guns are from a major metropolitan city. Where violent crime is prety high. I live in 2 communities of 12,000 and 150,000 people, and a majority of the people (see approx. 70%) in the 12,000 community have guns. there is almost no violent crime (almost b/c of fist fights and the like), and almost no theft/robbery, and the same is true of the 150, 000 person community. But go to the closest major city, and there is violent crime multiple times a day. So by your reasoning we should ban major cities because that is where all the crime is taking place. Remember, as you so eloquently put it....
You take them out of the hands of 90% of the criminals (the remaining 10% are the ones who are unlikely to ever have anything to do with you).
So if I remove all the people in the major cities across the US, then I should also remove about 90% of all violent criminals.

You may not think that this is what your argument boils down to....but it actually is.

[Boreas]

People have a right to protect themselves their family and their property but people that use guns commit crimes if found guilty should never be able to carry one again.

[OoOxRuichixOoO]

My vote is that only Police/Soldiers/Etc can only own firearms.
My point here is that a gun was basically invented to keep peace and order intact.
While keeping killers and murderers in line.They are trained to carry a gun around.
And they are trained to use them in the most useful way there is and that is protecting us citizens.But however there are incidents of them using guns against other people.

If held in the hands of a citizen a gun has a 50-50 chance to do something bad.
Why? Because reasons are: drugs , sex , MONEY , business ..whatever!
We can replace the gun with something else like Taekwando , Karatedo , Judo to face them.Because punks like those so called "gangsters" , teenagers can only rely to a gun to do something for them. Really weak that they can't feel the burden of a life in the trigger they pull. And same goes for adults , they can only use a gun to get rid of their problems instead of solving them properly.

[digitalanarch]

Criminals that have firearms are mostly career criminals that stole their firearms, from an ordinary civilian, for use in a crime. Civilians do not need firearms. The amount of felony murder (thanks to the availability of firearms from legitamate owners) would drastically decline. That's just my opinion.

[DisturbedMind]

Guns don't commit crimes, people do. I can place 2 million guns in the middle of a community, have everyone take one, and there would be no gun crime until a human being decided to use it for that purpose. It may seem like a trivial point, but you are laying blame for the ills of the world on an inanimate object. We should quit blaming the devices, and instead blame those with the desire. And I'll bet you that the person who wanted to use that gun illegally, would leave the community that I dropped those guns into to do his dirty work.

and again I reference a black market. does anyone think that just because they are illegal, that criminals wouldn't have access to weapons?

[digitalanarch]

If that was directed at me all i can say is: I am not blaming an inaimate object for the ills of the world. I am saying leave tools for war to the armies. Don't give people an oppportunity to use such devices. I mean hell we don't let citizens keep weapons grade plutonium do we? Also you may want to research some hard statistics that are available to the public. Your test was already done. In texas there was a town that mandated if you owned a handgun and had a ccw you had to keep your pistol visible. Crime did not fall it continued to occur outside of the public viewing as most back alley robberies. rape, and so on. To think that people would actually engage in criminal behavior the moment they get a gun...well that's just not how things work.

[DisturbedMind]

here is some research....Cato Institute
Gun Control: Myths and Realities

by David Lampo

David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute.

The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.

Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706

and here is one from worldnetdaily.com on a report by the "National Academy of Sciences"...

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

Hopefully this is enough research for you....I could find and post more if you want....

[digitalanarch]

We could get involved with even more stats than the comp you listed (nice research). However, you said I was blaming the guns... I am blaming the people. My position that I was making is take the option of using a tool that isn't and wasn't ever to be made for civilians away from the civilians and you will have taken care of most of the violent crimes involving guns. I don't go on "snype" hunts. As far as finding more extraneous sources to present, there is no need for you to Google any further.

[skyofdreams]

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.


Yea, assuming this IS true, the Columbine perpretrators is among the '2%' that did get their guns from gun show, lol.

[Sniper]

I don't see the big deal about gun regulations. A simple background check obviously doesn't cut it, as the VT killer proved by simply going to another state. There should be mandatory courses and a license if you want to get a gun, just like if you want to drive a car. The background checks should also be required so a convicted felon can't get a gun, and someone with a history of mental instability can't get a gun. Selling guns to the criminally insane is like handing Osama C4 and a map of potential targets. It's bound to cause a lot of damage.

[bleachigo10]

Everyone should be alowed to have guns. There is that amendment thing, you know the one that says people have the right to bear arms.

[DisturbedMind]

and yet again I have to ask this question. Does anyone actually think a criminal would plan on getting their gun legally? And if the answer to that question is no, then the only people effected by gun control laws are the non-criminals. So why take guns from them? I just don't see the logic past that point.

[Sniper]

The answer is YES! Why would someone risk getting a gun illegally when it's safer to get it from a gun shop? I'm not saying ban them, I'm saying impose at least the same level of control as cars and impose more through background checks so that crazies don't get guns and shoot up a college.

[Vampshingdss16]

If they people want guns i think they should have guns.

[DisturbedMind]

The answer is YES! Why would someone risk getting a gun illegally when it's safer to get it from a gun shop? I'm not saying ban them, I'm saying impose at least the same level of control as cars and impose more through background checks so that crazies don't get guns and shoot up a college.

There is one problem with that thinking. When someone purchases and registers a firearm legally, such as a handgun or rifle, the police have a record of that gun being in their possession. Anyone who would want to use a gun illegally would never want the police to know what gun they have.

[samurai89]

Guns should be placed in the hands of CAPABLE and SANE people. So yeh police officers,soldiers,mafia.....the list goes on.

[Drunkenvalley]

Sorry for being silly and reposting a thread that turned out to exist already, MangaAddict. My bad. ^^;

Anyway, I personally believe there is no way any civil person should be having a gun. The source of wanting a gun is that others have it, often, leading to the impression that the neighborhood is highly unsafe, or that it roots paranoia.

Heck, if I knew whether or not you had a gun, you may or may not ever see me again. Simply because I think having a gun simply because you fear for your life without needing to is downright pathetic. If you fear such, then get some classes in martial arts instead. It might let you exercise some of that fat away, too.

Heck, the gun hardly makes a difference. If someone had the intent of shooting me they'd manage to if all I had was a gun, because.. well, because they would have a gun already, and my own would probably be outside of reach. Ergo making it useless.

So.. I think selling guns is downright idiotic and inviting criminal activity. The gun doesn't protect you, because you are most likely unable to use it before you're down for the count anyway.

[Binky]

I live in the murder capital of Europe but would still be vehemently opposed to any move to legalise guns, as I have never seen anything close to a coherent argument for how legalising efficient tools of murder is an effective method to combat crime.

Maaaybe cops and so on, but then we've had a few cases in the UK of people getting shot by the cops for being the wrong colour in the wrong place at the wrong time or for acting confused when threatened with a gun for holding a table leg in a plastic bag. They assumed it was a shotgun and killed him, he was taking it to his mothers.

I don't trust people with weaponry.

[Neji2112]

allow guns, but on more strict terms, possibly owning a home, a lockable safe to keep it from childrens hands, ect. but never remove the freedom to own one, it makes us powerless against any one who has one, and wants to steal or hurt someone.

[Drunkenvalley]

Neji, I refer to my point:
What use is the gun to you? :P

This is what I want to know. There is no way you can defend yourself solely with the use of guns against a surprise attack, as no logic says you can keep it anywhere without getting shot/attacked first, whereas you are most likely efficiently immobilized long enough to kill you.

[Soupnazi]

I think that we should allow firearms, as long as the person hasn't been to prison in the last 5years, and that they are legally sane.

[funniecow]

Everyone should have a hunting rifle, and nothing else, think about it, if you are willing to kill someone you might as well hunt them down. Afflections please.


I honestly think if you were to allow guns you should allow ONLY hunting rifles, hand guns have no point in their use, and so does full automatic rifles. I mean unless you hunt entire herds at once you only need a single action rifle.

But to ban guns all together would have a lot of benefits.
-It may not bring down the crime rate, but it would make it easier to convict people of murder,
-It would bring down the innocent casualties
-Knives are every where and are essential to everyday life. (cooking and what not)
-You would pollute less, because knives don't use powder.
-We don't' litter from gun casings

The second amendment points to "A well regulated militia", so.......unless everyone in a town forms a militia then it wouldn't' really conform to the amendment. "The right to bear arms" doesn't really restrict what kind of arms, so wouldn't it be right for all of us to own nuclear weapons, it wasn't specified what type of weapons are allowed.

I don't understand how people say "well it's an amendment" and it's put there in case we need to overthrow a ruthless government. But those of you who own guns answer me honestly, do you vote, do you check to see if politicians are clean, do you see if they get their job done, and do you voice yourself when you are not satisfied? The amendments have been changed numerous times and added to. The plain and simple answer is that people try to interpret it in anyway that is viable to them.

We can make all of the rules to form a utopia but if no one enforces them they would fail.

[EightySix]

why a gun? how about a taser? one of those tasers that has some range to it...i think guns should be banned from the public. its just too dangerous. lets say a thousand people get to protect themselves but it only takes one out of that thousand to be enraged during an argument and shoot someone. its just takes a split second to change from a sane mind to an enraged primitive mind. in my opinion if you want protection, learn some self defence and get a pepper spray or a taser.

[masterOFflames]

gun is suck
EVERY1 CARRIED GUNS AND USE THEM WHEN THEY GOT ANGRY OF SOMEBODY, IT BAD FOR TEENAGER
people use it to shooting when they find a HATER
I LIVE ON MIAMI AND I KNOW IT
DAMM it danger

[fullmetaljacket]

If you get rid of peoples firearms, then we're fodder for our own government. if my government decided to round up, let's say all the jews, and I didn't have means to protect myself from said corrupted government I'd be pretty pissed. especially because that is exactly what happen in nazi germany.

tl;dr
you take away the guns of civilians and the government no longer fears you

[EightySix]

oh come on thats weak...the government doesnt fear you just because you have guns. i mean honestly what can your revolver or handgun do against some of the basic weapons the army has. the jews would have been rounded up with or without their guns. the government would fear you if your weapons were equal to theirs like maybe during the american civil war but these days they dont even need weapons to immobilize you...you come in a group they chuck in a tear gas, a flash bomb or even hose you down from far away with a powerful jet of water. And please dont mention machine guns because you wont be able to buy those without special permits.

In my opinion, the government doesn't fear you at all even if you had guns. These days they fear your vote more than they fear guns >_>...by the way your point about the jews..lets say the jews had some rifles some handguns , do you think they could really have stood up against the Nazi? the Nazi crushed so many countries far more well armed than the Jews could ever hope to be so i highly doubt it would make a difference besides the fact that the Jews would have died earlier in battles with the Nazi than be caught and chucked in concentration camps but the result would be the same..they would lose anyway.

[Soupnazi]

Atleast they would have a chance. I mean honestly, its a god damn Constitutional amendment, guns are a freakin right. Why are we debating this?

[EightySix]

haha because elsewhere in the world and nearly most places around the world, guns are banned from civilians. Your constitutional rights were written by a bunch of men from hundreds of years ago in the 1700s...would they have forseen the use and abuse of such rights in the modern days? you gotta take into account that the laws of the past cant always apply in modern situations.

[ghassassin]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/17/baby_bubba_tools_up/

....and I haven't had mine yet.

[Soupnazi]

haha because elsewhere in the world and nearly most places around the world, guns are banned from civilians. Your constitutional rights were written by a bunch of men from hundreds of years ago in the 1700s...would they have forseen the use and abuse of such rights in the modern days? you gotta take into account that the laws of the past cant always apply in modern situations.

Alright, so I should just give up my right to bear arms so a power hungry government can enslave me. Yea, uh-huh, good job Sherlock, I believe that Jews like Ann Frank would have survived if they had a gun with them. Seriously, guns are necessary to defend yourself with.

Oh yea, btw, most other places in the world aren't free countries either!

[EightySix]

well australia and new zealand and great britain are free countries..i dont see our governments trying to enslave us even when we dont have guns. plenty of other countries are free countries i could keep listing em but it would take too long. Honestly, so many murders happen in America each day and all those school shootings compared to any other country in the world...dont you think theres something wrong there? China isnt a free country but its citizens dont carry guns and yet its prospering like nobodys business.

By the way what do you define as a free country? Any country that allows guns? I believe Gandhi didn't use a single gun when he overthrew the British government from India. The government slaughtered so many of them but in the end the pacifists won. I just dont get your obsession with guns.. you keep insisting the Jews would have survived..then how about the well equipped armies of Europe that fell to the Nazis? Wont they have survived as well? After all, they were equipped, trained and had the numbers. Please explain that thanks

[Soupnazi]

^ As for Britain and other no gun countries and how is supposedly helps lower gun crimes, read this http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml

As for Gandhi he used non-violent protest and fasting to get his way, cause if he died, there would be a full scale rebellion the Britsh would have to deal with.

Now, if guns were banned, people would just get them from somewhere else, and thus give them a general disrespect for the law. Oh yea btw, if I don't have a gun and I go to an anti-government rally, the government could just mow us all down easily, and kill anyone who protested.

As for the Nazi's and the jews, lets say Ann Franks family killed the Nazi's after them, they retreat into the streets, and go find another hiding spot, if they make it past the Nazi's. There they might be able to hold out until the Nazi invasion was over. Guns give and take lives, either way its better to have a gun, so they think twice before attacking you.

[Mrdelta]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/17/baby_bubba_tools_up/

....and I haven't had mine yet.

I'm going to have to get my niece a permit now (she just turned 3)


yeah its an outrageous story but then again their are stranger laws and loopholes around

[Binky]

Soupnazi... Yes, 6,000 incidents in a nation 60 million versus what your own article claims are 180,000 guns used in crimes (And the same guns could of course be used repeatedly, but we'll ignore that) in the US, which is a country of 300 million. Six times the population, thirty times the gun crime and despite me lifting those statistics directly from the article you just posted Soupnazi they then go on to conclude that UK gun crime is at similar proportions to US gun crime. Thirty times less is similar? It's an opinion piece with likely shoddy statistics to prove their point, yet if you analyse even those crappy stats they fall apart. Shoddy journalism, the pros make up better fictional stats to prove a stupid point than that.

Western governments also don't make a habit of mowing down citizens, and if they decided to, what the hell is the difference between the British citizens with their kitchen knives and scissors against tanks and the Americans with your revolvers versus tanks. You gonna die anyway. Besides, what's the point in governments forcefully opressing you when if they just say they're going to opress you in their manifesto they'll get voted in? :)

[Soupnazi]

Well, lets lay off the topic of government for now, what about gangs? I'm sure they could find weapons somewhere if guns were banned. Their not going to bring in tanks if their arresting you for being against the government(whats with you people and heavy weaponry?). This goes back to the secret service. They would kill people in the night, but no one would ever question it because of fear. If a person had a weapon, they might have a chance for killing the secret service agents, and telling everyone else. Btw, just so you know. Gun rights were put second in the Bill of Rights for a reason. The ability to rebel is very important.

[EightySix]

erm if the secret service wanted you dead, im sure they could have you sniped or poisoned. I mean you think about all the people the CIA has assassinated in the past..dictators and generals who are surrounded by people with guns..haha not sure what movies you watch but the secret service aren't gonna bust in like a SWAT team..they're "secret" so they'd want to cover their tracks...they'd stake you out and hit you when you least expect it.

You mention rebels with guns..well what if those rebels were against you? a small group of rebels who went around slaughtering people? I agree gangs would have no problem getting guns since its so easily obtainable but alot of deaths are also caused by enraged civilian men who aren't in gangs. Psychopaths who aren't in gangs. Mad teenagers who in the spur of the moment , kill someone but are not in gangs...those deaths make up a huge part of the numbers as well...wouldn't it be safer if those people did not have access to guns?

[Drunkenvalley]

If you get rid of peoples firearms, then we're fodder for our own government. if my government decided to round up, let's say all the jews, and I didn't have means to protect myself from said corrupted government I'd be pretty pissed. especially because that is exactly what happen in nazi germany.

tl;dr
you take away the guns of civilians and the government no longer fears you

I'm going to be frank with you: That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.

Have you even considered the fact that having a gun makes no difference against the government?

If the government decided to round up all the jews only those who escape or hide survive. You can't quite defend yourself with just a gun/rifle/whatever. All you might manage is kill one guy at best and get shot repeatedly in return.

So it's a pretty darn weak argument.

No civilians should have firearms, and this is frankly becaues they have no opportunity whatsoever to ever defend you at all.

Or let's ask differently. If someone rings on your door, do you stand there with your shotgun? No. So even if it turned out once that the other person stood there with a gun, and shot you, you'd not be able to magically produce your shotgun to shoot him back.

Heck, even if you had the shotgun in hand when opening the door there is no way you'd be able to do more than shoot back possibly once at best on your way down.

[ghassassin]

Well with crime rates soaring high, its better to have one than not. You can't always depend on physical strength, at least not women. A gun in your bag will just make you feel safe, even if you aren't.

[funniecow]

If you get rid of peoples firearms, then we're fodder for our own government. if my government decided to round up, let's say all the jews, and I didn't have means to protect myself from said corrupted government I'd be pretty pissed. especially because that is exactly what happen in nazi germany.

tl;dr
you take away the guns of civilians and the government no longer fears you

Where you being sarcastic on the last line? You know what, you can have the guns if you want, but if you're keeping it on the premise that it's to fight government you should be required to vote and show up at every town meeting and actively investigate officials.

If you say guns are to fight the government, shouldn't had guns as a whole be taken out of circulation? Even basic body armor render them useless, and I honestly think that the military has more than enough BASIC body armor. "Oh no, he shot me, to bad it doesn't' matter".

There is no way that there will be another scenario where the US would fight itself, or the government on the same grounds as it did before. First off, the revolution was heavily financed by the French, and during the civil war the south lost because it didn't have any ways to secure new weapons. But there was the fact that it was only basic rifles and maybe the occasional inefficient cannon. If we were to wage war with the government now, one air strike, or even Striker brigade and we're done. The citizens are no longer on even ground in arms with the government anymore.

You know what it could probably be argued that you having a gun could've played in the cover up "FMJ was hysterical and coming at us with the gun we had to shoot him/her" "20 times?" "Yes, you know how we over react once we see a gun, in fact we're still shooting the victim, I mean assailant now".

Incidentally, doesn't that garner the idea of bigger more destructive weapons being allowed?:eek:

[masterOFflames]

let say
if 1 person have guns . he say he use it for a reason is to defend himself
but when the he have some problem with anybody like fighting
he use the guns
then it make people panic
start buying guns
who know will it be more person that buy guns will have the same action
then it will be more danger
so the government shouldn't let the people have guns in the first place
it will not let the panic happened in people

[Evan On Rye]

I have a Kimber 1911, and I have it in a lock box with a combination and a key. As long as you have a mental evaluation, and use proper safety proceeder I don't see why you shouldn't be able to own a gun.

My brother has his M-1011 from Iraq, it's very fun to shoot. I think that people shouldn't have military grade weapons, unless they were or are in the military . (Sniper Rifles, Automatics, Auto shotguns, Etc.)

Unless you're being invaded, you shouldn't be able to have anything other then small arms.

[EightySix]

hmm...ghassassin...you say crime rates are soaring so we should have guns...but erm are crime rates soaring because more people have guns to commit crimes? or is it because people dont have guns? i didnt understand that part..

[Drunkenvalley]

If you have a reason to regularly use the gun, ie you have practice shooting as a hobby, I can get it.. Partially. If you're at the shooting range and keep it there. But well, I think the range where you practice should have a safe container of sorts where every firearm is kept under good safety. Having your own gun is kind of pointless as you can only use it to attack under most circumstances, in which you are the one doing the crime.

It doesn't ever offer any actual protection whatsoever, because you can't magically shoot them before they've shot you anyway. Unless you always carry it in your hand. A gun isn't meant to defend, it's a tool to kill with.. :/

The availability of firearms is scary. I personally believe that if it wasn't that easy to get your hands on a gun the crimerate would change, and that the method of killing/threatening with weapon would become slightly more complicated as you would most likely have to use close-combat..

Oh, and look at some statistics seen in Wikipedia.
Gun violence in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States).

AND a quick picture.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/DChomicides.jpg/535px-DChomicides.jpg
Click for bigger version (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/DChomicides.jpg)

[EightySix]

haha no matter what you say...there will always be stubborn guys who will continously insist their right to bear arms is more sacred than anything else regardless of the crime rate, the statistics, the opinions and the common sense of it all..

sigh sad as it may be haha o well...

[Drunkenvalley]

Current vote statistics (this makes me sad in one way, happy in other):
They should only be carried by police, etc... 33.33%
People have a right to protect themselves. 28.57%
Not everyone should have them... 21.43%
Other... 16.67%

The thing is, with that picture just now in my last post... How many of those guns do you think are from organized crime members that smuggle them in? Hardly any, I'd say. I'd rather say most of them came from your local firearms dealer, more or less, used by civillians who were "Green" (aka "I may own a handgun" people).

[Evan On Rye]

You don't need a gun to commit crimes your picture obviously shows that.
(Other?Sounds extreme)

It's kind of funny how people use crime rates as an example, when they fluctuate so much throughout time. I'm not going to agree with you that no one should have a gun. It does offer a form of protection that a knife, or self defense techniques can not protect against. I can agree that the potential for guns is frightening, but people will be people and have used other weapons for crimes, LONG before we had guns. I'm sort of mixed on my stance, because this is a complex subject, but I don't think outlawing guns would do anything positive. It would be like alcohol prohibition all over again, only this time instead of moon shiners we would have gunrunners. Think of the amount of crime prohibition opened up in the United States, and what kind of men were created. Now picture those men with no moral compass, who killed civilians over alcohol, fighting over the gun trade. That seems more frighting then the current situation, considering they could even be more heavily armed then local police.

[Drunkenvalley]

You don't need a gun to commit crimes your picture obviously shows that.
(Other?Sounds extreme)

It's kind of funny how people use crime rates as an example, when they fluctuate so much throughout time. I'm not going to agree with you that no one should have a gun. It does offer a form of protection that a knife, or self defense techniques can not protect against. I can agree that the potential for guns is frightening, but people will be people and have used other weapons for crimes, LONG before we had guns. I'm sort of mixed on my stance, because this is a complex subject, but I don't think outlawing guns would do anything positive. It would be like alcohol prohibition all over again, only this time instead of moon shiners we would have gunrunners. Think of the amount of crime prohibition opened up in the United States, and what kind of men were created. Now picture those men with no moral compass, who killed civilians over alcohol, fighting over the gun trade. That seems more frighting then the current situation, considering they could even be more heavily armed then local police.

Yes, but you are forgetting that if everyone were forced to use other methods the rate of survival is slightly higher.. ^^;

A gunshot wound is slightly more mortal than a knifestab.. Aka guns are made to kill, not defend or injure. So saying that "we'd just use different weapons instead" is a bit weak argument.

The crimerate would most likely be forced down simply due to the fact that committing the crimes would be harder than with guns.

Well, there are ups and downs to why guns and why not guns. While the mortality goes down with knives, it's also more silent unless you're targeting a Shrieker. Guns actually make noise, unless you have a silencer--which plenty people don't.

But again, I just think that it's easier to kill people and then run, and that the gun itself hardly offers any protection whatsoever beyond a small bit of fear factor.

[EightySix]

if you have a gun, chances are the guy attacking you has a gun..however, since hes attacking i assume he would be the first to make a move since you are defending yourself ( unless you plan to point your gun at anyone that looks suspicious ) therefore with a gun pointed at you, would you still attempt to pull out your gun?

by the way i think we've come along way from the prohibition. i mean just look at other countries that ban guns outright...you dont see such violent behaviour as the one you described happening right? so why could other countries not be a model projection for a possible gun ban ? if other countries can do it, why can the country that calls itself the leader of the freeworld not follow along?

[Evan On Rye]

Either way, taking the right to have guns away won't solve the problem. It hasn't stopped drugs, and drug violence has risen the crime rate to which these guns are used so much more. It's all fine and dandy to think of making the world a better place, but it's unrealistic to think that outlawing something would change anything much. It would only cause more problems, is what I'm trying to say. And the point that guns are more lethal then knifes really doesn't say much, knife wounds can be much more brutal then gunshot wounds. Even with the higher rate of survival, one is not better then the other, they can both be used to kill. A gun is a tool to kill as you say, and a knife can be used one as well. As long as people have the potential to kill, which they will always and forever have, what ever tool used, people will still kill, and people will still die.

[Drunkenvalley]

@Evan On Rye:
There is actually a difference between drugs being legal and not legal. The use of it has decreased.

And I'm not saying "outlaw guns straight away", but rather increase the requirements steadily. Heck, if it goes slow enough you will hardly even realize it's happening..

You are also directly ignoring fact: A wound can be healed. Death cannot. While the removal of guns doesn't remove people's want to kill, it will most certainly calm it down in my opinion. The simplicity of shooting someone isn't nearly as complex as stabbing someone.

Also, I refer to my earlier points: You cannot actually defend yourself with the gun in basically any circumstance where you are at home and not expecting to be murdered any time.

[Riiko]

I don't know, it would be very hard to decide. True people need guns to protect their family, but others purchase a gun for violence - Bowling for Columbine. The rules should be just a bit strict. Like instead of selling them to teenagers or just any where, sell them to those who have a valid permit or something, state their exact reason for buying it, register the gun, everything so that way they can identify the person who purchased the gun if needed- that's my opinion, nothing else.

[Drunkenvalley]

I don't know, it would be very hard to decide. True people need guns to protect their family, but others purchase a gun for violence - Bowling for Columbine. The rules should be just a bit strict. Like instead of selling them to teenagers or just any where, sell them to those who have a valid permit or something, state their exact reason for buying it, register the gun, everything so that way they can identify the person who purchased the gun if needed- that's my opinion, nothing else.

Yes, but a slight problem is that many guns would simply be stolen to be used for the crime instead.. ^^;

This is why I'm saying the US should gradually lower the availability.

And... when would you be defending your family? By the time you got the shotgun you'd already be downed, most probably. :/ Guns are not good tools for protecting anything unless they're within arm's reach by the time the first shot sounds.

[EightySix]

these days a permit is so easily obtainable..i believe a link was posted here to a 3 year old obtaining a permit or something like that...questions dont work either coz gun sellers are out to make a profit so they wont turn you away unless you say you wanna slaughter a school..but who would be stupid enough to say that when buying a gun >_>..its just too easily obtainable even with tougher restrictions..you just cant count on these gun shopkeepers to turn away profit that easily. :S

but yea i'd rather be attacking with a knife than shot by a gun..least with a knife i'd be able to block the attack or take injuries at spots that aren't so vital..a stab in the arm while fending off an attack is better than a bullet you cant stop since its faster than the human movement.

[Drunkenvalley]

these days a permit is so easily obtainable..i believe a link was posted here to a 3 year old obtaining a permit or something like that...questions dont work either coz gun sellers are out to make a profit so they wont turn you away unless you say you wanna slaughter a school..but who would be stupid enough to say that when buying a gun >_>..its just too easily obtainable even with tougher restrictions..you just cant count on these gun shopkeepers to turn away profit that easily. :S

but yea i'd rather be attacking with a knife than shot by a gun..least with a knife i'd be able to block the attack or take injuries at spots that aren't so vital..a stab in the arm while fending off an attack is better than a bullet you cant stop since its faster than the human movement.

Not to mention that there's a 70% chance to survive a stab-wound to the heart compared to the 20% chance to survive a gunshot to the heart.

[MangaAddict]

Well, I don't know about other countries, but in the US we have the right to "bear arms" as stated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Therefore, I believe people should have their guns as long as they keep them out of any public buildings. In the state I live in, people are allowed to carry guns into certain buildings. I think that is going too far. Also, I think it should be a law to have some sort of lockbox for your gun if there are children in your home. And I also think there should be more license renewals so people don't forget how to properly use their weapons. And finally, I think that background checks, before buying firearms, should be more extensive.

[ghassassin]

And that Bill of Rights of the Constitution allows 10 months olds to carry guns. Anyway, you need a gun nowadays, otherwise you are screwed. You can't just wait for people to come and rob you or rape your wife or kidnap your son in front of your eyes. Either make anyone and everyone deprived of it, which is impossible; or you need to move, before somebody from the back pushes you sideways.

[Drunkenvalley]

And that Bill of Rights of the Constitution allows 10 months olds to carry guns. Anyway, you need a gun nowadays, otherwise you are screwed. You can't just wait for people to come and rob you or rape your wife or kidnap your son in front of your eyes. Either make anyone and everyone deprived of it, which is impossible; or you need to move, before somebody from the back pushes you sideways.

Frankly, that hardly makes much sense, speaking as any kidnapper/rapist/etc has the "decency" to do it while you're away at least. >_>;

My point is that you frankly only achieve a few things by owning a gun:

A) It can be stolen.
B) Kids can get hands on it.
C) *ANYONE* can buy a gun, thus automatically increasing the death toll of any assaults where weapons are involved.
D) You may be downright insane, and still own a gun.
E) When coming home from work, you not only find your only son dead and slaughtered into bits on the kitchen table, but your wife raped and butchered like a pig. And the murderer sitting there with your gun.

[ghassassin]

Frankly, that hardly makes much sense, speaking as any kidnapper/rapist/etc has the "decency" to do it while you're away at least. >_>;

My point is that you frankly only achieve a few things by owning a gun:

A) It can be stolen.
B) Kids can get hands on it.
C) *ANYONE* can buy a gun, thus automatically increasing the death toll of any assaults where weapons are involved.
D) You may be downright insane, and still own a gun.
E) When coming home from work, you not only find your only son dead and slaughtered into bits on the kitchen table, but your wife raped and butchered like a pig. And the murderer sitting there with your gun.

What the hell are you talking about? Talking about kidnapping, heck, you will even allow me to s**t on your face with my gun in your throat.

A) Stolen? So? Do you not buy underwears just because they might get stolen?

B) Kids can even get hands on knives, gasoline, matchbox etc. If you don't have those in your house, then well, you win.

C) Thats what I'm talking about. Even if you restrict the sale of guns, trolls will still get it through illegal means. You can't just wait for them to blow the shot up your arse.

D) Well, I won't comment on that for certain reasons.

E) Murderer won't burst in your home to slaughter your son and rape your wife, barehanded. And your wife with a gun will at least have some, if small, chances of saving her arse.

[Drunkenvalley]

The basic point I'm trying to give is this, ghassassin: Even if you had a gun you'd never be able to use it, and it'd most likely simply disappear at best. ^^;

I mean, do you keep your gun in your hand, loaded and ready? I don't believe most people do, and those who do have a serious case of paranoia so we'll look away from those.

Rather let me ask.. If someone showed in your home suddenly, would you have been able to get your hands on the gun before you were shot/attacked/etc?

[MangaAddict]

Rather let me ask.. If someone showed in your home suddenly, would you have been able to get your hands on the gun before you were shot/attacked/etc?

There is no way this can be answered honestly. In some cases people know exactly where their firearms are. In other cases, people have them locked up somewhere in their closets where they aren't going to do much good in this sort of situation.

And that Bill of Rights of the Constitution allows 10 months olds to carry guns.

In some states you must be 18. In my state you have to be 21 to own a gun...>_>

[Drunkenvalley]

Yes, but would you even get the gun before you could determine if it wasn't just your housecat or whatever else? This wastes a lot of time if you don't usually grab your gun first thing upon hearing a sound.

Anyway, I'm just saying that if they're there to hurt you, they will probably relatively quickly find you and attack you. Thing is I don't believe you'd usually have the time to actually get your hands on your gun before you were attacked. I'm assuming here that the criminal isn't a total idiot who keeps breaking things noisily.

[EightySix]

a) a stolen gun compared to a stolen underwear....if people started attacking me with stolen underpants i'd be alot happier than if they pointed my uncle's brother's cousin's neighbours's gun at me.

b) thats why you hide em in hard to reach places. but you dont hide a gun in a hard to reach place coz then whats the point in having a gun? you are attacked but you ask your attacker to hold up while you get your gun from the top of the wardrobe?

c) well that depends...if guns were illegal then that dumbass who killed kids at VT would likely have found it harder to get a gun...maybe the longer it took for him to get a gun his resolve would die out? maybe he would wake up and realize he was being stupid?

just like in law...a woman who kills her husband while they're arguing and hes beating her up would get a lighter sentence than if the woman attacked her husband while he was sleeping even thought he tortured her...the law suggests that the women would by then have a calming down period which means that if she still goes ahead and kills the man, it would not be manslaughter since the intent was there.

sure the gangsters will still find a source for guns...but you take away the idiotic teenage kids who rush home to grab their dad's gun just coz someone stole their girlfriend.

e) you're under the impression a gun is kept withing reaching distance at all times? plus why would a murderer need your gun haha...since its obviously soo easily obtainable he can get his own and have his way in your own home.

[ghassassin]

In some states you must be 18. In my state you have to be 21 to own a gun...>_>

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/17/baby_bubba_tools_up/

....and I haven't had mine yet.
Doesn't the Bill apply on US as a whole or only a certain parts.
The basic point I'm trying to give is this, ghassassin: Even if you had a gun you'd never be able to use it, and it'd most likely simply disappear at best. ^^;


At least you have some chance which are better than none. And crime rates is fairly high in comparison to tragedy rates that you are talking about. Staring helplessly at the criminal is the worst possible thing to do, at least for me. Maybe it works for you?

[Eggz]

Based on the amount of recent school shootings and such I'd say the gun rules we have as of now are just terrible, needs to be changed.

[Drunkenvalley]

Doesn't the Bill apply on US as a whole or only a certain parts.


At least you have some chance which are better than none. And crime rates is fairly high in comparison to tragedy rates that you are talking about. Staring helplessly at the criminal is the worst possible thing to do, at least for me. Maybe it works for you?

Is your Gun your God? :D

I can tell you straight away that if you don't have easy access to your weapon even though you own one you might as well not have one. But if the access to it is easy then everyone can take it, hence you have to safekeep it a little better.

It's about the same as buying a car only to leave it in your garage for the rest of your life.

If you want to die with a reason then die with a fight. There is no "good" or "bad" death.

[Evan On Rye]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1199672787/Man_in_Holland_Brutally_Stabs_his_Girlfriend_Repea tedly

Gotta love these countries who are so much "less violent" without the guns. Four years in prison for that too. Amazing.

[Drunkenvalley]

Statistics-wise there are less murders in Norway. :P

Homicide rate (per 100 000) in the US: 7.9.
Homicide rate (per 100 000) in Norway: 0.78.

But anyway, I never said we are less violent, but that more guns leads to more deaths. I also never said that I thought the sentences murderers get is necessarily fair. Then again, we just have a respect for life, apparently.

Personally, I think that guy was simply out of his mind to begin with. And we all have those all over the world.

Ie some unsolved cases in the US like the Cleveland Torso Murderer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Torso_Murderer).

Or the relatively recent author who killed his girlfriend and tore her body to pieces and mixed bone remains with his cereal. Don't recall who it was, and can't quite find it.

[MangaAddict]

Statistics-wise there are less murders in Norway. :P

Homicide rate (per 100 000) in the US: 7.9.
Homicide rate (per 100 000) in Norway: 0.78.

But anyway, I never said we are less violent, but that more guns leads to more deaths. I also never said that I thought the sentences murderers get is necessarily fair. Then again, we just have a respect for life, apparently.



You have to remember that Norway has about 5,000,000 people while the US is in the 300,000,000 mark. It's only natural for the mean homicide rate to be higher in the US since the population is larger. Get the same statistics from places like India or China, there you have a population of billions... (I'm actually kinda curious to see those).

[Drunkenvalley]

Oh, silly MangaAddict, I knew you were going to say that. :P

It says "per 100 000". So while Norway only has 5 000 000 people while the US has I-don't-know-how-many the change doesn't matter much. :D

Here we go:
India's average (per 100 000), 1995-1999: 3.91
China's average (per 100 000), 1995-1997: 2.16

PS: There weren't any listed rates after that on the two countries.

[EightySix]

lol i think USA has more than 300million people living there now...300million was the statistic years ago if i remember right..India i think has about a billion..china is around 2 billion give or take...India and China both have a law that bans the possession of guns within the hands of civilians..i think drunken's statistics kinda prove that the USA sure is a much more dangerous place to live in even with the right to bear arms for your own protection. :)

[Drunkenvalley]

Estimated Population (2008), United States: 303 605 941 (4,55% of world population)

Estimated Population (2007-2008, not 110% sure), India: 1 130 080 000 (16,94% of world population)

Estimated Population (2007-2008, not 110% sure): 1 322 950 000 (19,83% of world population)

EDIT: That was embarrassing typo.

[EightySix]

hmm china sure didnt raise its population by much..o well i guess the figures still prove things. woulda thought america had much more people coz i remember seeing that 300mil number many years ago. anyway like someone said earlier about a prohibitions and governments attacking people and all that kinda nonsense.. china isnt even a democracy so its people have even more to fear plus the poverty rate is much higher ...u'd think the death rate would be much higher

[MangaAddict]

Oh, silly MangaAddict, I knew you were going to say that. :P

It says "per 100 000". So while Norway only has 5 000 000 people while the US has I-don't-know-how-many the change doesn't matter much. :D

Here we go:
India's average (per 100 000), 1995-1999: 3.91
China's average (per 100 000), 1995-1997: 2,16

PS: There weren't any listed rates after that on the two countries.

How dare you call me silly, I take offense to that. My eyes merely slipped...>_>

Anyway, homicidal rates may also vary with culture.
Now does that say 2.16 or 2,16 for China?

And anyway, I still don't believe that guns should be taken completely away from citizens. Haven't you heard of people who say that citizens deserve guns in case they need to overthrow the government? Sounds retarded doesn't it? But it makes them feel happy.
And to once again re-state the only point I have to make about this issue; people should be able to legally carry guns but gun laws should be tougher. We can't punish everyone because there are a few little asses out there who kill with guns. And yes I say few compared to the general population.

The end. And I won't come back. Unless Mr. DrunkenValley feels the need to call me silly again...>_<

[Drunkenvalley]

Ooops, we use the comma to separate here. I'll get that fixed. ^^;
*used to comma*

Sorry.

Anyway, I am indeed saying that there are reasons why to have a gun, but one of those reasons aren't to defend your home.. Which is why I'm saying also that only those that have a really valid reason to have them should have access to them at all. Though I strongly discourage having any firearms at home among your shelves.

So yeah, tougher rules, in my opinion, is quite necessary. And, MangaAddict, I believe that guns are one of the reasons that the culture has changed, resulting in the differences in death rates. :P

[Sniper]

My main concern is actually enforcing the gun laws we already have. We say that felons and the mentally hadicapped can't have guns, which I completely agree with. However, there is no record available to check who is not allowed to own a gun. Instead, we have a form that asks "Are you a felon? Yes or no" and "Are you mentally handicapped? Yes or no"

The honor system doesn't work on the insane or dishonest felons. What we need is a database with the persons picture and a single sentance saying "This person can own a gun" or "This person can't own a gun." Then whenever someone buys a gun, the shop owner checks the person's ID and compares it to the picture on the database. If it says they can't own a gun, they don't sell it to them. Simple, effective, and it doesn't invade their privacy.

[MangaAddict]

So yeah, tougher rules, in my opinion, is quite necessary. And, MangaAddict, I believe that guns are one of the reasons that the culture has changed, resulting in the differences in death rates. :P

You've made me post again. :mad:
I believe the exact opposite. I think culture determines how a nation or country will produce laws and enforce them. Maybe Norway was always a sweet little northern country (I am not up to date on my history of Norway)? The US was founded on revolution and the fact that they (American rebels) could not carry guns because of the British which, in turn, caused the whole "right to bear arms" bullcrap we see in the Constitution today.

And yes Sniper. I believe that the only major problem with guns is who is getting them. Background checks are so extremely faulty. We also have to worry about whether or not gun owners know how to properly handle their firearms. Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you know how to use it... which is a serious problem.

[Drunkenvalley]

@MangaAddict:
Forget something? :P

Vikings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking) came from Norway among countries.

Anyway, culture and rules is a bit back and forth surrounding which affect the other. So whether the allowance to have a gun came first, or people wanted guns, it does not much matter to me. My point is that the people given the access to guns should be limited to policemen and people with a license of sorts to use the gun for hunting and/or hobby-shooting at ranges.

And again, I'm not saying this should happen immediately, but the rules are very loose in my opinion.

[MangaAddict]

@MangaAddict:
Forget something? :P

Vikings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking) came from Norway among countries.
I was not aware vikings had guns. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

My point is that the people given the access to guns should be limited to policemen and people with a license of sorts to use the gun for hunting and/or hobby-shooting at ranges.

And again, I'm not saying this should happen immediately, but the rules are very loose in my opinion.
True, everyone with a gun should have a license and they should have to continuously renew it. But unfortunately, there is no way we could be sure that people buy guns for the sake of using them to hunt. But I still believe anyone who is not a felon or known to have any (and I mean ANY) history of mental illness should have the right to own a weapon.

[ghassassin]

Police arrives at the crime scene after its committed. If you allow your arse to be whooped like that, you are most welcome, says the criminal.

People illegible or unworthy to get a license still get it and you can't do a damn thing about that. Till weapons exist, they will be used. If you can wait to cry over spilled milk, thats your choice.

Mentally ill people aren't allowed to have guns. Yet if they grab one somehow, thats the government's fault and not the gun's.

[Drunkenvalley]

I was not aware vikings had guns. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.


True, everyone with a gun should have a license and they should have to continuously renew it. But unfortunately, there is no way we could be sure that people buy guns for the sake of using them to hunt. But I still believe anyone who is not a felon or known to have any (and I mean ANY) history of mental illness should have the right to own a weapon.

It was in response to you saying we were apparently a cute little harmless country. That is all from me for now, as you two apparently don't have anything new to add either. :P

[EightySix]

You've made me post again. :mad:
I believe the exact opposite. I think culture determines how a nation or country will produce laws and enforce them. Maybe Norway was always a sweet little northern country (I am not up to date on my history of Norway)? The US was founded on revolution and the fact that they (American rebels) could not carry guns because of the British which, in turn, caused the whole "right to bear arms" bullcrap we see in the Constitution today.

Then how about China? More people lesser homicide rate...weird since that country has been a warring nation for thousands of years but if you wish to talk about a revolution then the birth of communism was born through Civil War when Chairman Mao leading that famous 10000 mile march or something to attack the capital. Please explain that for me...

I hardly think culture makes a difference because if culture did make a difference then it matters not if there were guns or swords because that violent nature would be passed down. Takes more to cut a man down than to shoot him from 500 yards away.

Anyway its hard to tell when a person is mental. That mad dumbass who killed at VT looked perfectly normal beforehand..So how do you tell the difference? who would you sell your guns to? Its all very well t o talk about national databases to check up who is mental and who isnt but how do you grab people for testing? What if they turn mental after testing because of some kinda trauma in their lives which is the case most of the time..

[MangaAddict]

Then how about China? More people lesser homicide rate...weird since that country has been a warring nation for thousands of years but if you wish to talk about a revolution then the birth of communism was born through Civil War when Chairman Mao leading that famous 10000 mile march or something to attack the capital. Please explain that for me...

Done.


Anyway its hard to tell when a person is mental. That mad dumbass who killed at VT looked perfectly normal beforehand..So how do you tell the difference? who would you sell your guns to? Its all very well t o talk about national databases to check up who is mental and who isnt but how do you grab people for testing? What if they turn mental after testing because of some kinda trauma in their lives which is the case most of the time..

Professors said he was disturbed. His writing was always pessimistic and oddly sadistic. He had a past of severe depression.

Psych tests before getting a gun license? Not a bad idea.

[cornpopsicle]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html Warning: Gratuitous swearing and violence

Yeah, pretty much most people called him crazy. You'd have to be completely ignorant to look over someone who could write something like this seriously.

[ghassassin]

"Those" kind can still behave normally in normal circumstances. Unlike to what mentally challenged would do in front of licensing authorities, mentally depressed can behave as good as you or him or her. And that VT guy had acquaintances/classmates/teachers whose first reaction to the shootout was "That must be him".

And that....doesn't make him a dumbass >.>

[Sniper]

Agreed. He wasn't a dumbass, that just makes your argument less credible.

He had an extensive history of being in and out of mental hospitals. Of course, gun shops have no way of checking this since that's not available to them. If it was, we could have prevented a lot of shootings.

[inuya-sha23227]

I think only police should carry guns our generation has too much easy access to guns. They seem to only use it for crime and nothing. Else it is fine if u carry a taser gun it probably is more effective than a gun. If u get shot wit a taser i guarantee u r going down like a worm. if u get shot u r more liable to be arrested for manslaughter if u give them a jolt they will surrender i promise my grandma gave me a taser for Christmas i have only had to use it once.

[thejabber27]

guns are fine they don't kill people the bullets kill people.

[AfterDawn]

Why citizens should have guns? For self protecting? You wouldn't expecting them to carry the guns for shopping aren't you? What make the sense if you got a gun and locked it all up in your room's cupboard? In my opinion, guns is not for citizens. That is it for sure. If you are an ordinary citizen who wants to experiences real live GTA, then I've nothing to talk about it.

[thejabber27]

dude its not the guns you have to worry about its the bullets they fire and the people who wield them that make or break justice

[AfterDawn]

Nah, bullets and guns need to be exist among each other, Like yin and yang. If there are guns, there must have many demands of bullets. Let's say if the government actually ban and stop the manufacturing of bullets, the dark market still existed, right?

[EightySix]

who the hell buys a gun and doesnt load it? i mean come on guns dont kill but the bullets do? that totally doesnt make sense...then you should release anyone who has ever killed with a knife because its not the person that killed but the knife that actually did it.

[thejabber27]

no no no thats not what i am saying. im saying that the objects known as guns can in actuality only be used as a blunt weapon. however when you fire the objects known as bullets from the guns only the bullet does damage and therefore is what killed the person

[Evan On Rye]

It kind of funny, because he's right. It's not the gun that really kills you, it's the bullet.
Haha.

So why don't you guys start saying we should ban the sell of bullets instead? I know they've already outlawed the sell of Black Talons. Why not do the same for every single other one?

[Xavt]

I'm jumping really late into this one, please forgive me if I repeat too much or say something that already been refuted. I did skim through the previous posts though.

I will also state that I argue this as a United States citizen.

First, there is nothing wrong with regulating which and which kinds of firearms citizens can own. I really do not think that anyone is advocating giving a gun to every citizen because that's pretty much a horrible idea. There is also nothing explicitly written anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits the regulation of firearms.

Some concepts regarding the second amendment, mostly concerning interpretation:

When it illustrates the need for firearms to protect a free state, the founding fathers wanted to ensure that we could fight our government if needed. They had seen how impossible it was to topple an oppressive dictator if there was no army or weaponry with which to fight. Some argue that the National Guard is the modern equivalent of a well regulated militia, but if that were the case, then the National Guard is entitled to weapons, not every citizen.

Also, this concept might be a bit archaic by today's standards because the level of technology that our government's military operates is well above that of our common citizenry. There really is no firearms we can own that would protect us from cruise missles, tanks, and that newly developed railgun technology. Scary thought if our government ever turned against us, although I do not ever foresee something like that ever happening here. In any case, the National Guard would be better equipped to fight our government if it represented our militia.

If we take another perspective, every citizen should have the right to firearms because they can form a militia. If by some chance, Mexico were to suddenly invade California with an armed force, I feel that I have the right to bear arms to protect myself and my country even though I am but an ordinary citizen.

So it is hard to say how the concepts in the second amendment fit in the modern world, but the supreme court will take a case if they ever feel the need to clarify.

The debate on gun control is alive and well as demonstrated in this thread. Although there are tons of statistics we can pour over, no one is able to illustrate a real correlation between having or not having guns and having higher or lower incidents of gun related crime. The solution to gun violence is obviously neither simple nor known.

Some say that all guns should be banned. If that were the case, this would be the most probable scenario:

Manufacturing, selling, and trading of guns is prohibited. Citizens are required to turn over all firearms to police or another federal agency. The movement of guns in bulk is now severely limited, but as someone earlier had pointed out, drugs are illegal, but they still end up in massive quantities on the streets. This would simply lead to an expansion of the black market. Also, how do you know when someone has not turned in a firearm? You can try to track down every registered weapon, but most firearms used in a crime are stolen. Besides that, there are many guns that are not registered. There is also no easy way to check every vehicle for firearms.

The biggest issue in that scenario is that there are millions of firearms already in circulation within the country, and there is no simple way to discover, track, or remove them.

A few other interesting things I read in this thread.

Someone had mentioned that guns are merely tools used to commit crime. If the person had not decided to do something criminal, then the gun is harmless. The reason guns are feared is very logical. They end human life very efficiently. It does not require extensive training or complex procedures to fire a gun. The tool is unnecessary in most scenarios in modern society.

The old saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people is also very interesting to look at. I would say that this is the heart of the issue. If no one ever wanted to take the life of another person, we could all have fully automatic weaponry but it would not matter because we would never use it to kill. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

A lot can be done is there was a shift in society. Although some problems are complex, such as the inequality of socio-economic status in the United States, I feel that there really needs to be a change in values in our mainstream society. If maybe we had better values as a whole, crime, amongst other things, would be better.

[Devi]

I think, as an Australian citizen, it is illogical to have an entire nation of people who can kill each other with just the pull of a trigger and that the benifits of owning a gun (eg the protection and the fact you can form a militia) are outweighed by the deaths caused by the guns, for most people.

This does not include the army, farmers (to shoot wounded animals that are in pain and suffering) and police officers (as, unlike Australia, which is surrounded by oceans, America would still have guns going in and out via Mexico and Latin America and police officers would need to be able to deal with this).

Compare the American murder statistics with the Australian murder statistics.
[American murder statistics here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html)]
{Australian violent crime statistics can be downloaded (very small)here (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02006?OpenDocument)}

America has 5.7 murders per 100,000 people in 2006 (17,034 nationwide). In about 68% of these murders a firearm was the weapon used . Australia had 1.4 murders per 100,000 people (281 nationally). 41 of these murders used a firearm (approximately 15%).

To put these figures into perspective, Australia has a population of around 20 million people, give or take a few million, while America has a population of 300 million people, give or take a few million.

[gohantheman]

Gun don't kill people, people kill people. You can set a loaded gun on the table and have it pointing at somebody and it will not shoot. It's not the guns fault for killing somebody it's the user of the gun. It's the same thing with knifes and other stuff. Your car can kill people, your pen kill people if you stab them in the throat. You can kill somebody with almost everything in your house. BTW cars kill more people every year compared to guns. Is anybody talking about banning cars, no there not. So why are we picking about gun control. It's dumb. Also just to let you know that some people are collectors of guns, one of my dad's friends has a safe that is rated to be a bank safe, he has thousands of guns down there and the ammo to go with it. It's funny though one time there was an escape confict and he's friends with the head of police and they asked to use his guns that he has downstairs. He didn't care if they used them. He know that if they used them to defend themselves it might save there lives because they had his guns with them. So guns can be used to save lives.

[Saintkoe]

Most people have A misconception to the U.S. right to bare arms. Part of it is personal defense. Part of it was because alot of people lived off what they hunted and killed. but there was A third reason, it was so the people had the power to protect their freedoms, incase the government tried to seize power in a dictatorship fashion. Remember almost any dictator first acts will be to remove A way for the people to fight for themselves such as guns. and remove A persons right to freedom of what they say.It was put in there as a defensive measure and honestly it is A very good one.

Also most people that kill, rob and steal. Do not get their weapons legally, so take the gun away from the person that uses it for protection, and you are giving more power to the criminal.

[EightySix]

erm would be good if you have some facts and figures to back your statement about "most people that rob kill and steal do not get their weapons legally". If America allows anyone to get a weapon, then why bother the illegal way?

1. When someone robs you, you dont expect it..he comes up to you then points the gun at you and asks u for your money..do you have time to pull out your gun as well before he shoots you ?

2. Do you carry your gun with you everywhere you go? I highly doubt it so if someone comes at you with a gun, would you have time to run to your bedroom drawer then grab it? I doubt having a gun would make a difference.


Its funny how you say America wants to protect itself from rogue governments. It has been pointed out earlier that if the government wanted to take control, your revolver or shotgun wont make a difference against an army of tanks, APCs, the latest machine guns etc etc. But that aside, if that is such a real danger then why is it that so many other countries dont allow civilians to have guns? You cant tell me that only America is in danger of such a threat. At least then explain why other countries arent afraid of dictators ...for example take Singapore a small small country. You take barely days to conquer it yet they still arent afraid. But America is huge...to send an army across america would mean weeks..plus the army themselves are family men..they wont listen to a dictator. So why does America have that fear which other countries dont share? Care to explain?

[Saintkoe]

America doesn't allow anyone to own A gun. Former convicted felons for example are not. Hence the illegal guns thing.

For number 1, if you were going to steal someone would you pick the guy that has a gun shown(because he has a carrying license) or someone that doesn't. Same goes for number 2, you break into a house and hear a shotgun rack. You are going to leave.

Remember that when A country turns to A dictatorship. It's not over night. It is very slow, with rights being stripped away, slowly until you wake up and go wow. First things that a dictator wants to get rid of is speech , and weapons. You would be surprised what enough people could do. Take A look threw history, its full of people out fighting the supposed stronger military. It's not as much of A preventive measure against invasion as it is a preventive measure against, ones own government from seizing control of the people.

[Saintkoe]

Just food for thought some qoutes from the framers of the right to bare arms, most are Thomas Jefferson.-

Thomas Jefferson:"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

George Washington:"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

Elbridge Gerry"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.(Spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress 1789)

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."


Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Thomas Jefferson: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."

[EightySix]

so no.1 you're implying everyone carries a gun around. or if they arent, they should. is that what you're saying?
and no.2 who in the world breaks in and makes a huge amount of noise? when they break in, its usually when the person is out so if your gun is at home, by the time you come home he can point a gun at you before you can grab your gun.

you have still yet to explain why you're America feels its the only one threatened by a dictator. You have yet to explain why other countries do not have such "rights" and you have yet to explain how a dictator would take over America without an army. If you're in the army and your officer suddenly tells you to go attack citizens, would you obey?

History is full of people overthrowing governments. When America fought Britain, they both had muskets. When the North fought the South, they both had muskets and cannons. When Russia tried to attack Afghanistan, the citizens were supplied by the US. Everything from ground-to-air missles to the common AK-47. BUT if America's army were to attack America right now..do you honestly think the citizens stand a chance? Not to mention obesity is a huge problem ..so you suddenly expect them to get fit get a sub machine gun and go all guerilla?


You bring out quotes from Jefferson and Washington...during which period did they live in? Do you think they'd say the same thing today? Name me one weapon you can buy that the army doesnt have which is ten times better and more effective. Do civilians have tear gas? Do they have flash bangs? Do they have tanks? Weapons or not, if a dictator really managed to get control of the army, do you think you'd stand a chance? How would you shoot if you're crying from tear gas?

Its all fine and dandy to keep quoting but look back a few pages and check out America's death rate from murder by guns then compare it to China and India which was also shown. A population much bigger with a much lower death rate. How do you explain that when they have laws against civilians having guns?

[Saintkoe]

so no.1 you're implying everyone carries a gun around. or if they arent, they should. is that what you're saying?
and no.2 who in the world breaks in and makes a huge amount of noise? when they break in, its usually when the person is out so if your gun is at home, by the time you come home he can point a gun at you before you can grab your gun.
What I am stating by simple fact is ownership of A gun can detour and prevent crime, without it even being used. Not all people that commit crimes are very smart.


you have still yet to explain why you're America feels its the only one threatened by a dictator. You have yet to explain why other countries do not have such "rights" and you have yet to explain how a dictator would take over America without an army. If you're in the army and your officer suddenly tells you to go attack citizens, would you obey?

I am sure that America isn't the only one that feels that way, but since it is the only country I have lived in, It is the only one i can speak for. How a dictator takes over a country is quite simple, by slowly striping the rights of the people, and giving those rights to the government alone. A dictator does not come into power by military might but by slowly enslaving the peoples rights. Ever thought about how most dictators are elected to their office first, and then seize power. Want a small list Hitler, Castro , Saddam and the list goes on and on.

History is full of people overthrowing governments. When America fought Britain, they both had muskets. When the North fought the South, they both had muskets and cannons. When Russia tried to attack Afghanistan, the citizens were supplied by the US. Everything from ground-to-air missles to the common AK-47. BUT if America's army were to attack America right now..do you honestly think the citizens stand a chance? Not to mention obesity is a huge problem ..so you suddenly expect them to get fit get a sub machine gun and go all guerilla?
What is the primary weapon of an infantry soldier or marine. It is the M-16 or M-4. It is a 5.56 nato round. its basically a 22 rifle. The only differance between it and its civvy counterpart is the selecter switch giving it a 3 round burst or automatic. Which atleast in the Marine Corps are told never to use.
You also fail to think that revolutions and things of that nature are not fought like regular country vs. country wars. their is alot of guerilla tatics, but not all of it is hiding in the bush waiting for your enemy.
Give this some thought because it is one of the most fearful for any soilder to face. You don't know who is the enemy, they aren't exactly in A uniform. So its not oh I see the combatant bang bang.


You bring out quotes from Jefferson and Washington...during which period did they live in? Do you think they'd say the same thing today? Name me one weapon you can buy that the army doesnt have which is ten times better and more effective. Do civilians have tear gas? Do they have flash bangs? Do they have tanks? Weapons or not, if a dictator really managed to get control of the army, do you think you'd stand a chance? How would you shoot if you're crying from tear gas?
I honestly think they would still feel the same way to this day, there are things in those qoutes that do not age no matter what period you live in. A person with A hunting rifle could be just as effective as a person with a m249g.


Its all fine and dandy to keep quoting but look back a few pages and check out America's death rate from murder by guns then compare it to China and India which was also shown. A population much bigger with a much lower death rate. How do you explain that when they have laws against civilians having guns?
Are you taking into account things such as the differance in criminal sentencing. Statistics never give the whole picture.

For the record I do not own A gun and never plan on picking another one up the rest my life. I've done enough in my life with them that the mere thought of holding another one disgust me. But can people right to own them prevent someone from taking over A country, sure it can. Can it protect someone in a threating situation sure it can. does every single person have the right to protect themselves and the people they hold dear, ofcourse they do.

[EightySix]

1. Not all people that commit crimes are very smart and yet the law allows them to buy guns if their record is previously clean. Is that a smart thing in itself?

2. - Hitler had the support of his country because the government was failing. People lost faith in the royal family after they caused Germany to get in a huge debt of over a billion dollars when WW1 ended. So people wanted change and thats why Hitler got into power.
- Saddam was put into power by the U.S not the people after the first war. So whose fault was it that led Saddam to a second dictatorship? Plus the country of Iraq is ruled by different tribal links. Like the Sunnis and such. Saddam happened to be in a powerful faction and his faction prospered even though the rest didnt.

Now just take those two examples and quickly tell me if America is similar. Is your country in so much discontent that they'd take a chance at anyone who wants to be a leader? Do you think any one man can get a huge overwhelming majority of Americans to support his dictatorship?


3. You mention guns. But you still fail to take into account and mention the tanks, the APCs, the fact that your average civilian isnt trained in shooting as well as the army is and neither can their bullets penetrate the tank's armor, the fact that your average civilian doesnt have a bulletproof vest or a helment that can take minor normal revolver bullets without killing the soldier. You also forgot to mention that in guerilla fights, the advantage is with the army who have thermal vision and can easily spot someone hiding.

And you're also forgetting that the Army isnt just infantry. Would civilians stand a chance against special units who are trained for guerilla combat? Delta Force? Paratroopers? Navy Seals? Now if you're telling me civilians are better trained in guerilla warfare than them , I know you're just making it up.

4. Oh come on. Musket vs musket, they had no sniper rifles. Cannon vs Cannon, they had no artillery bombarding from over 10kms away. Sure Washington would feel the same way if he was commanding a civilian force with the same equipment as the army. Those quotes do not age but those quotes do not take into account the future. Heck one of your quotes said "To disarm the people is the most effective way to enslave them" ..funny thing is China is becoming a superpower and its economy is booming..is that enslavement?

5. Sure statistics are never 100% accurate but with such a huge difference in death ratios per population numbers, its majorly shocking.

Criminal sentencing? China has capital punishment but India doesnt so why is it India still has a lower death rate than America? Also, if you want to mention capital punishment then does it mean you're saying America should have capital punishment for all murders? But you're also forgetting to take into account many other countries that dont have capital for murder but still have a lower death rate like the UK for instance.

Can it protect someone in a threatening situation? Yes it can. But thanks to that "protection" the death rate skyrockets.
Does every single person have the right to protect themselves? Sure. Tasers, Pepper spray, learning martial arts, not going to dodgy places, not associating yourself with the wrong crowd. Simple things to ensure your life isnt threatened most of the time.

Can people with weapons prevent a government with an army from taking over? Yes? Are you kidding me? You still havent told me how civilians will counter tanks, the air force, the navy, and you arent thinking outside the box. With the navy, how will civilians gain imported food? All the army has to do is garrison any crops and plantations. Or maybe just use scorched earth tactics and then the army can feed itself off whatever is imported while the civilians? Have fun hiding in buildings?

But enough about bull**** regarding an army taking over. That is a very very weak excuse for having guns. One of the weakest. We both know damn well the army navy or air force will never take over no matter who becomes a dictator. American soldiers will never turn on their own country period. America enjoys its capitalist state of prosperity too much to even dare change it. So lets cut the crap about government take overs.

Try a different reasoning for Americans to have guns.


P.S You still havent explained how other countries are getting along fine without guns on civilians.

Edit : I forgot to mention that America is developing a new weapon based on sound. Whereby it amplifies a sound but allows that sound to be focused so with such a weapon even civilians with guns would not be able to even shoot straight if its pointed in their direction. Easy way of disarming guerilla groups. OR possibly a mini version to disarm someone instead of guns for protection..and YET there will still be people who will keep insisting they need guns.

[Evan On Rye]

1. Not all people that commit crimes are very smart and yet the law allows them to buy guns if their record is previously clean. Is that a smart thing in itself?

That doesn't even deserve a real answer, So I'll answer your question with another question. Do you know how many Ak-47's are sold to third world countries illegally? Even with Interpol and all these enforced laws banning the international sale and distribution of them, they are still sold and found WORLDWIDE. Just because your record is clean or not, will not change the fact that you can still buy a gun.



2. - Hitler had the support of his country because the government was failing. People lost faith in the royal family after they caused Germany to get in a huge debt of over a billion dollars when WW1 ended. So people wanted change and thats why Hitler got into power.

The fact is, he turned into a Dictator. The Gestapo, and Hitler Youth are prime the examples of that. As well as the hundred of thousands German's he had killed after he gained enough support. That's why Britain had entire Battalions made of defective German citizens.


- Saddam was put into power by the U.S not the people after the first war. So whose fault was it that led Saddam to a second dictatorship? Plus the country of Iraq is ruled by different tribal links. Like the Sunnis and such. Saddam happened to be in a powerful faction and his faction prospered even though the rest didn't.



No, just like your argument with Hitler, he was instated in the position to do good for the county, and then he abused his power. The massacre of thousands upon thousands of Kurds is an example of such. Oh, and all the people under his chain of command.


Now just take those two examples and quickly tell me if America is similar. Is your country in so much discontent that they'd take a chance at anyone who wants to be a leader? Do you think any one man can get a huge overwhelming majority of Americans to support his dictatorship?

Do you understand what's going on in America right now? Our children are getting stupider from the lack of funding going into are Educational system. It's all being spent on a "War", that the senate, declared without the whole approval of the American people. We have been outraged at the behavior of our president, and despite that, he still served another term. I could go on and on about all the diffrent problems that could lead up to something like a Dictator, I mean most of the country is already controlled by the Rich and powerful Americans.


3. You mention guns. But you still fail to take into account and mention the tanks, the APCs, the fact that your average civilian isnt trained in shooting as well as the army is and neither can their bullets penetrate the tank's armor, the fact that your average civilian doesnt have a bulletproof vest or a helment that can take minor normal revolver bullets without killing the soldier. You also forgot to mention that in guerilla fights, the advantage is with the army who have thermal vision and can easily spot someone hiding.

Because this topic is called, Gun Control. You should also known that the Friend or Foe identification system the Military uses, can be bought, and made rather quickly within the United States. Everything can be bought, even AP rounds and Kevlar. Damn I can even remember all those Russian Tanks and Attack Helicopters that are bought and used to this day, not to mention those outdated Migs.


And you're also forgetting that the Army isnt just infantry. Would civilians stand a chance against special units who are trained for guerrilla combat? Delta Force? Paratroopers? Navy Seals? Now if you're telling me civilians are better trained in guerilla warfare than them , I know you're just making it up.

When I look at how the Northern Vietnamese killed Special Forces just as effectively as Iraqi Insurgents do, equipped with little more then small arms and guerrilla tactics. I'm willing to say that anyone can become a casualty, no matter how specialized and trained they are. Saying that civilians having a chance against them is "made up", is just ignorant.

Do you even know what you're talking about after that post?

Because from what I read, seriously, I don't think you do.

[The0s]

Wow you've gotten far in the progress of debating..unnececairly far.
There should be Gun control..and it should be very very strict.Limiting the ones who are permitted to use guns to only police and etc.You don't need a gun when there's the police..but that's what it should be.
Now in this world of coruption and violence people feel "safer" with a gun in their hands.. *sigh* a heck of a world we're living in that's for sure..

[Alex Ryder]

Wow you've gotten far in the progress of debating..unnececairly far.
There should be Gun control..and it should be very very strict.Limiting the ones who are permitted to use guns to only police and etc.You don't need a gun when there's the police..but that's what it should be.
Now in this world of coruption and violence people feel "safer" with a gun in their hands.. *sigh* a heck of a world we're living in that's for sure..

LOL yeah he's got a point. When did this become about dictatorships?
Guns shouldn't be made available to those with a prior criminal record, there should be maybe be a 3-year test phase where they see the results of that legislation, then, depending on the results, either ban guns completely except for the police and army and crack down on arms dealers, or let it go on.

[gohantheman]

Well some people do feel safer with guns on them. My dad's buddy has a gun on him at all times. Heck he has enough ammo and guns to supply a couple hundred people in his basement. And btw it's not that hard to get armor pericing rounds. He has some sitting in his basement. He also has guns that are illegal to buy or sell. The reason he has them is because he inherited them. So if he tryed to sell them he could be arrested. But the government can't do anything about him owning that gun since the law only says you can't buy or sell it.

[EightySix]

LOL yeah he's got a point. When did this become about dictatorships?
Guns shouldn't be made available to those with a prior criminal record, there should be maybe be a 3-year test phase where they see the results of that legislation, then, depending on the results, either ban guns completely except for the police and army and crack down on arms dealers, or let it go on.

I know its boring to read back so i'll explain how it became about dictatorships. Some guy insisted that guns are mainly to protect yourself from your government taking over.

Anyway time to reply Evan on Rye :

1. Topic is gun control. My reply was to gun control in America. By the way, America is one of the world's biggest gun dealers to third world countries. The revenue generated from it is in the billions or more. But this just got more off topic with your question

2. Yea he turned into a dictator but again read the argument before my post. My point is that unlike Germany, America is not in huge turmoil and they arent in a huge huge debt. 1 billion in those days is a huge amount of money ...for America to be in a situation as bad as Germant after WW1 , they'd need to have a deficit of a couple of trillion.

3. You really are getting off topic at this point. Also, Saddam started a war with the Arabs...and America still thought he would do good by putting him back in power? You joking?

4. Look point is, America is not going to be controlled by a dictator. Sure there are some things that Bush has forced upon America, but America values its capitalist state and democracy too much. Plus many rich Americans would not like a dictator because that means someone will control their profits.

5. Read the end of my post, I've already said there is a 0% chance the army would even think of taking over America. Its a ridiculous hypothesis that is not even worth considering. However i'd like to point out something...

-In Iraq , deaths by suicide bombers is the most common reason for infantry deaths. So you're telling me Americans are suddenly going to adopt the Muslim way of suiciding? Even without all those virgins waiting for them in heaven?
- I do know that some special forces were killed on a mountain side in Iraq when they landed. It seems they were ambushed. However, would it be the same when flat terrain is present? You mention small arms yet you fail to take into account how they'd penetrate tank armor. You mention buying outdated Migs, yet you havent explained how they would be able to fly around without a radar tracking them down.

So yes im saying civilians would have no chance at all. And fact is, you you and I both know that a civil war will never happen. So neither can prove or disprove that theory so dont bother arguing about such nonsense. Government takeovers are such a weak excuse for having guns..even protecting yourself was a better excuse. >_>

Haha and you seem to be missing an argument for a whole lot of my points. Or do you not have an answer as to why the death rate is lower in other countries and how other countries are doing fine with laws against guns.

Edit: Sorry to all the Americans who feel Im targetting their country only. But then again, which other country has as much controversy over guns than America.

[centurionelite]

My two cents:
First to eighty six


1. One of the largest or the largest? Its either us or Russia for the largest legitimate weapons trading. However, he was arguing about illegitimate, something that is very difficult to control and frequently does into hands that we in the Western World do not want to see them in.

2. We actually do have a deficit of a couple trillion, I believe around nine now. UK's is around seven, I think. Don't quote me on that, I recalling stuff I read about a few months ago.

3. The theory called Realpolitik. Saddam was the best thing for that area, he had the power and the authority, and the will to stay in power and provide a buffer between Iran and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. That is why he was allowed to stay in power by H.W. Bush.

4. I agree. We are not venturing near a dictatorship, I am appalled people are still spouting that nonsense when we have an election in about six months and Bush will be out of office.

5. The basis for this argument is in our constitution. It states that civilians have the right to overthrow the government if they find it is corrupt or no longer represents the people, or something to that extent. Also, with the civilian control and bureaucracy surrounding the military I doubt that the military will "take over" the US.

Yes it is an outdated piece of the constitution, but it is one that is most likely to stay. More as a representation of our freedom and independence that we gained than anything.

To Evan:
Were you in America at the time of going into Iraq? Because the popular support for it was overwhelming; the reason it has slacked is because popular support is fickle. Very, very fickle.

Also, and please correct me if I am wrong. We did not put Saddam in power originally. We did keep him in power through supplies and then after the persian gulf war, but those were, as I said attempts to buffer Iran.

Lastly, the Vietnam war was almost half a century ago. Military technology on our part has improved drastically since then. Also the insurgents, while not having a spending congress behind them are fairly well supplied. Part of that is our fault for not securing the weapons caches first off and for other mishandling.

Also it is highly unlikely that the American public will instate a civil war or that a Dictatorship will be established. The way our government is made does not coincide with a government easily. It is near to impossible save for world spanning or country destroying conflict. (See Lincoln and Roosevelt)

Also, and I know you did not do this outright, but please do not blame the problems on the rich or wealthy classes.

-Bonus-
Eighty six I would like to see your sources about murder rates though. I know ours is less than desirable, I am just not positive about ours in relation to other countries like India as I am having trouble finding anything directly comparing the two in recent years.

Edit: For reference: According to the FBI, our murder and manslaughter rate is 5.7 per 100,000 individuals as of 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_02.html

[EightySix]

Sources :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm#gunpctage - Homicides most common with handguns in the USA

Quoted :

Handguns are effectively banned or severely discouraged in Canada and Europe. The lack of handguns in Canada and Europe is a big factor in why Canada and Europe have such low murder rates when compared to the USA. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

Actually just read the entire http://www.angelfire.com/rnb//y/homicide.htm website. Its pretty much what I'm getting at anyway.

China : 31000 cases of homicide for 1,321,851,888 people

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/16/content_591430.htm

USA : 15 500 murders in 2005 for 303,623,000 people

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html

The difference is 4.3x therefore, if the American population was the same as Chinas the number of murders would be 4.3x of that 15.5k bringin it up to 66000.

Now for India

#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people

This is per capita. India has a 1.2 billion population.


Anyway this is in reply to centurionelite asking me for sources.

Agreed on most points. An overthrowing is unlikely to happen because such a scenario would be extremely rare for a country like the USA. The threat is more likely for China with its authoritarian government. Or for a smaller country.

Sorry I dont know what the deficit rate is but in relation to what Germany experience after WW1, it really crippled them. I guess I need to find a better comparison for that. But just imagine your countryside ravaged, your government broke from all that military spending and you got to pay Austria Hungary's share of the war costs.

[centurionelite]

Sources :

Sorry I dont know what the deficit rate is but in relation to what Germany experience after WW1, it really crippled them. I guess I need to find a better comparison for that. But just imagine your countryside ravaged, your government broke from all that military spending and you got to pay Austria Hungary's share of the war costs.

Thanks for the sources, tho wikipedia is kinda sketch :p (jk I love wikipedia)

Also, Germany's problems was more from the tremendous inflation, and I mean tremendous, of their currency to the point where it was literally worthless. That was due to a variety of factors, some of which you mentioned.

Anyway, back onto topic now haha :lol:

[EightySix]

Back onto topic being I think there are other ways instead of guns to protect yourself. Protecting yourself is a good reason to have a gun but there are other ways. Like i mentioned earlier, tasers, pepper sprays, a miniaturized version of a sound amplifier/focus.. I just no longer see the need for guns...But i guess thats just me...I've never lived in America and all the countries i've lived in seem fine without guns. Americans tend to think differently from what I think because they have the constitution that they've gotten used to. For me, I've never had such a thing so I wouldn't know what its like to have a gun..but then again lol like i said I've never seen the need for one :)

Anyway im gonna get off this debate so others can debate.

[Siya Uchiha]

Ah the guns debate. It never gets old and it never ends. I know this is over used, but I'm just going to say it: Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. If you outlaw guns and/ or only let the law have them... then take a guess who will have a gun and who won't. Yes, yes. The bad guys will have guns, and the cops. Think you're a ninja and have the ability to chuck a knife into someone before they shoot you... chances are a big no. I'm not saying people need to carry them around and show them off, but everyone should have them in their homes that feel like they need one. I have a few guns myself because I'm a hunter. Are you going to take hunting away because a few sickos want to kill people? Also, Once I get the time, I'm getting a permit to carry a gun in my car because I don't feel safe in this world. I can't even stay at hime by myself becuase I'm so afraid someone will break into my house again... that's right, again. A third time, actually. And I don't live up in some crazy city or ghetto, I live halfway between two towns and my neihbors are about 30-40 feet away. There are just to many crazy people out there today who don't care about anything but themselves and I don't feel the need to have to get killed over something stupid. I did this debate for my Senior Composition class last semester so If I find the paper for this subject then I'll comment some more if I feel the need.

I'm not sure what some of you right above were even talking about. The topic was gun ownership in general, not wars and the lets blame other countries and crazy leaders game. I don't care whether youre from Amercia, Iraq, Japan, Austrailia, or even Antartica. Seeing as I'm American, if we're going to ban guns, lets ban knives, forks, glass, rattlesnakes and bleach too, because you can die by those too and apparently America needs safety bumpers on everything.

[centurionelite]

Well different countries are relevant to the topic. Their were comparisons drawn between different gun laws and the results in each area.

As to guns... just... I am going to say that no, guns in America should stay. The problem with murder does not rely on guns in my opinion, it lies in gangs and education.

You have to notice the differing cultures and demographics in different countries as well in order to fully express one's views on guns ownership in relation to other countries. Take the US for example, I think a part of the reason why our murder rates are higher in relation has to do with our culture.

Yes, we have violence in our media that popularizes violence but so does our emphasis on individualism which counteracts a big impede on murder that the European and Asian nations have, which is more of an emphasis on societal cohesion and harmony.

Also, look at history, the low murder rates in the Asian countries do not only have to do with the lack of weapons. Asia has a long history of very, in relation to the countries of the west, conservative punishment which acts as a deterrent in some cases towards violent crime. Also religion plays a major role in the acceptability and taboo nature of murder in a society as well.

Again, I believe guns should be allowed in the US to an extent. Handguns for defense and rifles (for hunting purposes) are all imo, we do not need auto weapons in this country anymore than we need rpg's to defend ourselves.

[Siya Uchiha]

Well different countries are relevant to the topic. Their were comparisons drawn between different gun laws and the results in each area.

As to guns... just... I am going to say that no, guns in America should stay. The problem with murder does not rely on guns in my opinion, it lies in gangs and education.

You have to notice the differing cultures and demographics in different countries as well in order to fully express one's views on guns ownership in relation to other countries. Take the US for example, I think a part of the reason why our murder rates are higher in relation has to do with our culture.

Yes, we have violence in our media that popularizes violence but so does our emphasis on individualism which counteracts a big impede on murder that the European and Asian nations have, which is more of an emphasis on societal cohesion and harmony.

Also, look at history, the low murder rates in the Asian countries do not only have to do with the lack of weapons. Asia has a long history of very, in relation to the countries of the west, conservative punishment which acts as a deterrent in some cases towards violent crime. Also religion plays a major role in the acceptability and taboo nature of murder in a society as well.

I totally agree with the history and culture. And I also think that American's are too leniant in their punishments. You kill someone, get caught, the get released 20 years later... eh, no big deal -__- All those people who are against the death penalty would probably change their minds if a family member was killed, (not in all cases but you know there are people out there like that) I don't know about the eduacation part, though. You can only teach someone so much, and being taught in a school enviorment where everything is censored... it's hard to get the real message across to people on how serious things are. Just telling people and learning out of a book can only go so far.

Actually, my sophomore year, three years ago, four freshmen were going to shoot up my school because people bullied them. I think they thought that you had to kill someone to protect yourself, because "Guns are to protect you" I can see, maybe... where people might thinks things like that.

[gohantheman]

And I also think that American's are too leniant in their punishments.
You might want to look at your sources better. America has been getting alot stricter latley with all the murders. Now you usually get at least 30 years to life in prision. You only get the death pentalty when you go on a killing spree and kill like 10+ people. And don't quote me on this but i heared in Texas that there trying to pass a law that says that if more then 3 people saw you kill somebody then you get the death penalty when convicted and you get moved to the front of the line. While alot of states are trying to ban the death penalty. I just like that part. There putting in an express line.

[Siya Uchiha]

I just like that part. There putting in an express line.

Sorry, I quoted you, XP But that was just a funny comment. But the thing with only getting the death penalty for going on a rampage.. you think you'd get the death penalty if you kill just one person. I don't know. Maybe I was raised differently than alot of people but it just seems like if you murder someone for who knows what, then you should have the DP slapped on you. I don't know alot on the DP myself, I just know a good amount about gun control. lol.

[gohantheman]

I don't care if you quote me or not. But anyway i meant with the death pentalty part is thats the usally case. But there has been cases where if the guy shots a person a kills them in an inhumain way (how is in humain to kill somebody?) (can't spell today sorry everyone!)

[ak47warries]

Generally there shouldn't be violence which would lead to usage of guns even be it the police force.I mean if the world was peaceful you would need guns.We would need it for sport(guns made for sport and cant kill no boy)
Gun should exist in general. Only the non-harmful or hurtful ones that even a 8 year old can hold!

[austinoflight]

I believe the the good/evil scenario that trumps anything else. If the good people, the people who won't use them except for self-defense can't have them then what stops the others who won't follow the law and have one anyway to take advantage of those who don't. Hunters should have guns as well, becuase personally I would have deer over processed cow meat, and chance of getting mad cow disease. I don't blame hunters for trying to get away from nasty processed foods.

[Phaxi]

IMO, ordinary citizens should never be allowed to hold guns, for obvious reasons. The only argument I've heard against gun control is "it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people".

To which I reply, you can't change human behavior. People will kill each other regardless, so why not change the only part of the gun+mad man=death equation that we can actually change? The gun part. There is no reason for an ordinary citizen to be holding a gun. NONE AT ALL. Want to go hunting? Fine, rent a gun from a specialized hunting rifle store. When you're done, give it back.

Btw it is a lot easier to kill with a gun then with a knife or a bat. People who want less gun control obviously can't see it from a victim's stand point. Think about it. How much is your gun worth to you? More than all the victims of Virginia tech? Would this mad man have remained mad even without guns? Yes he would of. But would he have been able to kill that many people without guns? No.

Side note: lol protect themselves. How? Tell me how you're going to protect yourself with a gun if I sneak into your house at night and shoot you in the face? Huh? Tell me how you're going to protect your self if I stick you from behind with a gun? What, your gun's gonna magically come to life and shoot me? Please.

[negitoro]

Hunters should have guns as well, becuase personally I would have deer over processed cow meat, and chance of getting mad cow disease. I don't blame hunters for trying to get away from nasty processed foods.How many gun owners truly hunt for food on a daily basis?

[austinoflight]

How many gun owners truly hunt for food on a daily basis?

Probably, not that many. Most gun owners have them for protection, be it becuase they feal threatened or want to feel safe. I hope to once I get the required licenses, and a gun that I will go annually or bi-annually to hunt for food. I'm pretty sure Ted Nugent does it most of the time, though he probably does it for his "rugged individualism". I know of many people at my school, and that those people know that go and hunt for their food. Yes, they would go to Mc. Donalds once and awhile, but I'm just saying the hunting for food thing would be a reason for guns. Personally though, my main reason for being pro-guns is the "bad people who will break the law, will do it. Same thing with drug use, abortions, and homosexual relationships, even if these thigns become illegal people will still do it, if they want to. (sorry if I sounded like a dead conservative radio preacher)

[Lizelle]

people should have guns only to protect themselves, hunt, and . . . no other reason really. but yes sorceritza in a perfect world we wouldn't need weapons but this definitely NOT a perfect world so we do need to them afterall.

[Phaxi]

Probably, not that many. Most gun owners have them for protection, be it becuase they feal threatened or want to feel safe. I hope to once I get the required licenses, and a gun that I will go annually or bi-annually to hunt for food. I'm pretty sure Ted Nugent does it most of the time, though he probably does it for his "rugged individualism". I know of many people at my school, and that those people know that go and hunt for their food. Yes, they would go to Mc. Donalds once and awhile, but I'm just saying the hunting for food thing would be a reason for guns. Personally though, my main reason for being pro-guns is the "bad people who will break the law, will do it. Same thing with drug use, abortions, and homosexual relationships, even if these thigns become illegal people will still do it, if they want to. (sorry if I sounded like a dead conservative radio preacher)

You didn't just compare drug use to homosexuality. Cause if you did, then I'm gonna have slap you :/. *slap*

And seeing as how you like the they'll still do it anyways argument. Why not make child pornography legal? Or prostitution? Or allow rape? Why shouldn't the government just pass out drugs? Don't like someone? Just kill them, since people murder others anyways.

people should have guns only to protect themselves, hunt, and . . . no other reason really. but yes sorceritza in a perfect world we wouldn't need weapons but this definitely NOT a perfect world so we do need to them afterall.

We have police for a reason.

As mentioned in my post, having a gun doesn't do **** for you. I sneak into your house at night and rob you while you sleep, your gun can't protect you then. Or I ambush you in a dark alley, wtf are you gonna do with a gun in your back pocket if I'm already pointing one at your head? In case no one has noticed, criminals don't just walk up to you and ask for a duel before they kill and rob you.

The only thing less gun control brings is more pointless deaths. Seriously, is owning a gun that statistically speaking, you'll probably never use for self defense, worth the countless number of lives lost because mad men and women were allowed easier access to fire arms?

[austinoflight]

[QUOTE=Phaxi;2037025]You didn't just compare drug use to homosexuality. Cause if you did, then I'm gonna have slap you :/. *slap* 2037025;=QUOTE]

I really shouldn't of did that. I am sorry for comparing personal self destruction to love. I just referenced those things becuase drug use and homosexuality like guns are a way of life for some people. You deserve to slap me for that one.

What I really meant to say Phaxi was that even if guns became outlawed except for by the police, that wouldn't save the individual at night, in his house. There is not much you can do to defend against a gun, unless you are in the Matrix or have super-human reflexes. Or you could have a gun yourself for protection.

For that little rape thing, rape is wrong because it is about power, not sex. Who wants to see an under age child in a porno, those guys are sick. Prostitution should be legalized in my view. Again save this for another debate. You are getting a little hot-headed, I'm sorry for offending anyone.

P.S. Personally I think gunpowder, dynamite are some of the worst inventions of mankind. I'm a sword guy, but that isn't the debate it is on gun control. And, again I apologize about the comparing of drug use to homosexuality.

[Mrdelta]

I am fine with people owning guns but I want stiff penalties for unlawful use of a gun, use of a gun while intoxicated, and through investigation of any suspected wrongdoing.

I want each round registered to a person. someone gets shot with your round you get punished. you didn't shoot the round? tough ****. its your bullet, its your responsibility. not to say the shooter should not also be punished. anyone using an unregistered round for any reason should receive stiff punishment. by stiff I should clarify I mean on any case, at least 5 years.

you can have your guns, but you do anything to step out of line and your in it deep. that's my position.

[Phaxi]

you can have your guns, but you do anything to step out of line and your in it deep. that's my position.

Why let them have guns in the first place then lol? And no matter how steep a punishment is, it's not going to bring back a life ._.l

[austinoflight]

Why let them have guns in the first place then lol? And no matter how steep a punishment is, it's not going to bring back a life ._.l

Because there are going to be people with guns anyway. I trust the police, but I can do it myself. If someone is going to kill me, if I fill my life is threatened. I should have the right to defend myself. You are right, it won't bring back a life, but not everyone uses that type of logic. I wish people did, but they don't.

[Mrdelta]

Why let them have guns in the first place then lol? And no matter how steep a punishment is, it's not going to bring back a life ._.l
you can never bring back a life, so its better to punish the one who did it. its quite simple, compromise is when neither side is happy. I would be fine if no one had guns but others would not. others would be fine if there were no regulation on guns and ammunition, I would not. you get the happy medium of you get your guns but if you do anything wrong with them, enjoy your new accommodations curtisy of state and federal government. I feel you should punish those who do wrong, not everyone for a few people messing up.

[Phaxi]

Because there are going to be people with guns anyway. I trust the police, but I can do it myself. If someone is going to kill me, if I fill my life is threatened. I should have the right to defend myself. You are right, it won't bring back a life, but not everyone uses that type of logic. I wish people did, but they don't.

And as I said before, the chances of a thug giving you the chance to use your gun in an ambush in a dark alley or a sneak attack at night in your own home is slim. The negative of allowing guns (normal people/non-organized criminals given the ability to kill anyone they normally couldn't/wouldn't be able to kill. And since people will kill anyways, why make it that much easier for them?) really does out weigh the small positive. I think I read an article somewhere that in Japan, where gun control is much more strict, there are only a handful of death by guns in the country and their usually all gang on gang. I could be mistaken, but I think that's proof that less gun control only increases normal civilian gun deaths.

you can never bring back a life, so its better to punish the one who did it. its quite simple, compromise is when neither side is happy. I would be fine if no one had guns but others would not. others would be fine if there were no regulation on guns and ammunition, I would not. you get the happy medium of you get your guns but if you do anything wrong with them, enjoy your new accommodations curtisy of state and federal government. I feel you should punish those who do wrong, not everyone for a few people messing up.

So you would sacrifice human lives to help ease some light paranoia? I call it paranoia because how many stories do you hear of normal people defending themselves effectively with a gun? Sure you can put people in jail for wrongfully using a gun, but would they have wrongfully used said gun had they not been given the gun in the first place? Would the person on the receiving end of the gun still be dead?

And compromise isn't the only problem solving method :P.

How is taking your gun away from you punishing you >.>.

[Lone_ant]

Bearing arms isn't just self-defence..

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

-2nd Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights

It's also what apparently the Founding Fathers though of as a safe-guard to act as a check against the government itself to be wielded by the citizens, as well as against external enemies. So limiting gun use too much would infringe this right given to the citizens.

[Phaxi]

Bearing arms isn't just self-defence..

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

-2nd Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights

It's also what apparently the Founding Fathers though of as a safe-guard to act as a check against the government itself to be wielded by the citizens, as well as against external enemies. So limiting gun use too much would infringe this right given to the citizens.

More paranoia. Do you see other western countries with more gun control getting taken over by the government or getting invaded by other countries in the 21st century? No. And I've never been a fan of the lets use the constitution argument, it hampers critical thinking. It's also impossible for anybody back then to predict what would happen in the future. Throwing out the notion of the timeless right.

[negitoro]

Bearing arms isn't just self-defence..

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

-2nd Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights

It's also what apparently the Founding Fathers though of as a safe-guard to act as a check against the government itself to be wielded by the citizens, as well as against external enemies. So limiting gun use too much would infringe this right given to the citizens.Seriously, out of all the arguments against gun control, I've never understood this one at all.

The world is so different from when this was originally written that it's almost completely irrelevant today. To think that a militia of any sort nowadays could safeguard a community against the government is ludicrous.

Out of all the factors that make America a 'free country', the possibility of an armed revolution is very, very low on any list.

[austinoflight]

And as I said before, the chances of a thug giving you the chance to use your gun in an ambush in a dark alley or a sneak attack at night in your own home is slim. The negative of allowing guns (normal people/non-organized criminals given the ability to kill anyone they normally couldn't/wouldn't be able to kill. And since people will kill anyways, why make it that much easier for them?) really does out weigh the small positive. I think I read an article somewhere that in Japan, where gun control is much more strict, there are only a handful of death by guns in the country and their usually all gang on gang. I could be mistaken, but I think that's proof that less gun control only increases normal civilian gun deaths.



Wow, conform to the rest of the west, that is not reason, to toughen gun control.

We do need I believe a more strict gun control policy, but not one based on the fact that everyone can't own a gun, well actually I don't think everyone should own a gun, those with depression shouldn't own a gun, and those with a criminal record should own a gun. It will save them, and others. I believe you should only use a weapon for defense, but if everyone thought that way, there would be no reason for a weapon, now would there. Also there should be stricter regulations for gun controls. I'm not arguing on that part of the debate.

To your post about people who use the 2nd ammendment to protect thier "rights" which i doesn't do no such thing is ignorance. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to have a gun, so you can assassinate the president! It is there to protect the country in time of invasion. The last time that happaned was in WW2 when the Japanese in Alaska.

[Phaxi]

Wow, conform to the rest of the west, that is not reason, to toughen gun control.

The last time that happaned was in WW2 when the Japanese in Alaska.

#1) You're twising what I said to make it sound silly. Conforming is obviously not my point. It was about what makes sense.

#2) Have you taken any history classes by any chance?

#3) You didn't address my point on how the chances of you being able to defend yourself with a gun is extremely slim, all you did was repeat people have a right to defend themselves from an invisible threat. And as stated above, the constitution is old, these laws don't nessasarily have to make sense anymore. When was the last time America was invaded?

And in case you haven't guessed it yet from above, it wasn't during WW2 in Alaska.

[austinoflight]

#1) You're twising what I said to make it sound silly. Conforming is obviously not my point. It was about what makes sense.

#2) Have you taken any history classes by any chance?

#3) You didn't address my point on how the chances of you being able to defend yourself with a gun is extremely slim. And as stated above, the constitution is old, these laws don't nessasarily have to make sense anymore. When was the last time America was invaded?

woh... I really don't know how I'm twisting what you are saying. America was invaded as in Japanese soldiers were on American soil in WW2. You need to brush up on some history as well I geuss. Yes, the constitution is old, but what you are saying is that it doesn't have to make sense anymore. You can say what you want about the constitution, because dissent is a right that I respect.

[Phaxi]

woh... I really don't know how I'm twisting what you are saying. America was invaded as in Japanese soldiers were on American soil in WW2. You need to brush up on some history as well I geuss. Yes, the constitution is old, but what you are saying is that it doesn't have to make sense anymore. You can say what you want about the constitution, because dissent is a right that I respect.

The conformity thing you mentioned was twisting the original point of what makes sense to a non existant "why is America so different" argument.

And lol ok, if you can call taking over a remote island (WITH NO CIVILIANS "DEFENDING THEMSELVES" WITH GUNS, hence it nulls your use of it as a defense for civilian owned fire arms) an invasion then I'm sorry, I was wrong.

And you didn't do anything to answer the point of how the right is old and doesn't work anymore. All you did was say I have a right to bash it, that's it. No defense or anything.

[austinoflight]

The conformity thing you mentioned was twisting the original point of what makes sense to a non existant "why is America so different" argument.

And lol ok, if you can call taking over a remote island (WITH NO CIVILIANS "DEFENDING THEMSELVES" WITH GUNS, hence it nulls your use of it as a defense for civilian owned fire arms) an invasion then I'm sorry, I was wrong.

And you didn't do anything to answer the point of how the right is old and doesn't work anymore. All you did was say I have a right to bash it, that's it. No defense or anything.

Oh so you want me to defend the point, to destroy your point. That the world is different, and that the police, and the goverment that pays them should be the ones making the rules, craddling us from craddle to grave. The goverment officials we elect have our best interests at hand, right. That the police, can protect everyone, and that they should be the only ones with guns. I trust myself before I trust the police, the goverment, or the military. Look at what that gets us a piece of crap called Iraq.

The world isn't 1786, it isn't 1942, and yah, the world is some what more educated about consequences of their actions. However a world where you can't protect yourself, is a world where the individual is knocked out of society and enters into the group. The world isn't as safe, as it used to be. Religious tensions, gang violence, rampant drug use and a weak global economy are threatening to create some pretty wicked individuals. The same enviroment that bred 2 world wars, but these time crazy wack jobs have nukes.

I guess you believe that god will come save you, from a bullet, but unlike the movie Crash. There is no rubber bullet in a gangster's gun, in an angry neo-natzi's gun, in a North Korean or Iranian officials gun. People will use guns even if you ban them, so the people need to be able to fight back. Why did France, Belgium, lose to the Germans, why did Columbia become controlled by drug lords. The people, nor not the majority of the populus could defend themselves, for laws were in place to stop them.

We can stop crime, I do believe we need a more strict gun control policy, one that makes it more difficult to access a gun, access bullets for a gun, and some sort of check-up on gun owners. We don't need to ban them. Its not paranoia, and protection for you and your loved ones.

[Phaxi]

Oh so you want me to defend the point, to destroy your point. That the world is different, and that the police, and the goverment that pays them should be the ones making the rules, craddling us from craddle to grave. The goverment officials we elect have our best interests at hand, right. That the police, can protect everyone, and that they should be the only ones with guns. I trust myself before I trust the police, the goverment, or the military. Look at what that gets us a piece of crap called Iraq.


I don't know what you're trying to reply to here, cause it has nothing to do with what I said.


The world isn't 1786, it isn't 1942, and yah, the world is some what more educated about consequences of their actions. However a world where you can't protect yourself, is a world where the individual is knocked out of society and enters into the group. The world isn't as safe, as it used to be. Religious tensions, gang violence, rampant drug use and a weak global economy are threatening to create some pretty wicked individuals. The same enviroment that bred 2 world wars, but these time crazy wack jobs have nukes.


Still haven't answered my "low chance of defending yourself with a gun in an ambush, popular thug tactic" argument. All you did was go around it with more on what's wrong with the world and then over exaggeration into why civilians need guns.


I guess you believe that god will come save you, from a bullet, but unlike the movie Crash. There is no rubber bullet in a gangster's gun, in an angry neo-natzi's gun, in a North Korean or Iranian officials gun. People will use guns even if you ban them, so the people need to be able to fight back. Why did France, Belgium, lose to the Germans, why did Columbia become controlled by drug lords. The people, nor not the majority of the populus could defend themselves, for laws were in place to stop them.


Cause a pro gun man/woman's believe in the fact that a gun will magically protect them from a bullet is so much more sensible? And you don't get it. I already acknowledged the fact that gang members will still use guns if banned. However, ordinary civilian on civilian gun death's will decrease because normal people, and even small time crooks, will not have access to guns. Get it? Get it?


We can stop crime, I do believe we need a more strict gun control policy, one that makes it more difficult to access a gun, access bullets for a gun, and some sort of check-up on gun owners. We don't need to ban them. Its not paranoia, and protection for you and your loved ones.

Again and again I have to mention that once I've shot someone, he/she isn't coming back even if you put me in jail. So why not prevent this? Cause you need to protect yourself and your family from a non existent and paranoid (if you think anyone is gonna invade America soon, you're paranoid) threat with an ineffective method that only gets others killed? Seriously, I would like to see you defend yourself with a gun if I sneak into your house at night with a shotgun and blow your face off while you sleep.

Btw did you know that if we made guns illegal, only those with bad intentions would still have them? Giving police a reason to be able to arrest these asses. They can't now cause anyone can own a god dam gun until they shoot someone.

[Mrdelta]

So you would sacrifice human lives to help ease some light paranoia? I call it paranoia because how many stories do you hear of normal people defending themselves effectively with a gun? Sure you can put people in jail for wrongfully using a gun, but would they have wrongfully used said gun had they not been given the gun in the first place? Would the person on the receiving end of the gun still be dead?

And compromise isn't the only problem solving method :P.

How is taking your gun away from you punishing you >.>.

have you never dealt with 3 year olds? taking away ones toys is a primary form of punishment.

compromise is the most realistic form of problem salving short of strong-arming.

how many stories of successful hunting trips and rounds at the shooting range do you hear? media perception and story selection is not the issue.

it is not wise to toss around theoretical situations then bash paranoia. just saying...

Sure you can put people in jail for wrongfully using a gun, but would they have wrongfully used said gun had they not been given the gun in the first place?

This made me laugh. The logic here is staggering. Yes if you do not have a tool you can not have used said tool to preform an action. What of it. the purpose of government is not to limit tools. Prohibition, the war on drugs, people who really want the tool are going to find a way to get it. The tool exists it is out there it will get into peoples hands, so it makes no sense to deny it to law abiding people who want nothing more then to shoot at animals and inanimate objects.

[Phaxi]

have you never dealt with 3 year olds? taking away ones toys is a primary form of punishment.

compromise is the most realistic form of problem salving short of strong-arming.

how many stories of successful hunting trips and rounds at the shooting range do you hear? media perception and story selection is not the issue.

it is not wise to toss around theoretical situations then bash paranoia. just saying...


I already explained I don't care if you rent a gun for shooting animals or even pots and pans, but why do you need to own one? Cause it will scare the petty thief also armed with a gun when he sneaks into your house at night? Ok then.


This made me laugh. The logic here is staggering. Yes if you do not have a tool you can not have used said tool to preform an action. What of it. the purpose of government is not to limit tools. Prohibition, the war on drugs, people who really want the tool are going to find a way to get it. The tool exists it is out there it will get into peoples hands, so it makes no sense to deny it to law abiding people who want nothing more then to shoot at animals and inanimate objects.

I'm sorry if logic is a bad thing.

And I've explained that I understand hard criminals will still use guns a billion times. I'm tired ot repeating my stance on this. Read my other posts, practically everyone of them mentions it and explains why that logic fails. If you still don't get it or disagree with it more avoidance defenses. Then I give up.

Good luck defending yourself from a misfiring into your head.

Edit: I just remembered I replied to you on why your logic of "well people are still gonna do it anyways" fails miserably with rape and child pornography as a few examples and other reasons from my last post. Did you not read it or are you just avoiding it?

[Mrdelta]

I already explained I don't care if you rent a gun for shooting animals or even pots and pans, but why do you need to own one? Cause it will scare the petty thief also armed with a gun when he sneaks into your house at night? Ok then.



I'm sorry if logic is a bad thing.

And I've explained that I understand hard criminals will still use guns a billion times. I'm tired to repeating my stance on this. Read my other posts, practically everyone of them mentions it and explains why that logic fails. If you still don't get it or disagree with it more avoidance defenses. Then I give up.

Good luck defending yourself from a misfiring into your head.

Edit: I just remembered I replied to you on why your logic of "well people are still gonna do it anyways" fails miserably with rape and child pornography as a few examples and other reasons from my last post. Did you not read it or are you just avoiding it?

must have missed that last part. I'll have to look for it but I don't see from what you mentioned here how it applies.

I will admit to not reading all posts here and only answering comments directed towards me.

again with the theoretical situations... they should be used to illustrate your point not form it.


anyway the point we seem to disagree on is that I feel the governments role is to punish those who have done wrong and leave the rest of us alone, while you position seems to be that they should prevent people from doing wrong even if it infringes on personal freedoms. the best solution is probably a balance of both. as is life.

I'll go look for that rape child porn thing.

edit: sorry I never said logic was a bad thing just that your logic was too simplistic and off point.

Edit 2: ahh read your thing about rape and child porn. your off base. you just said people are going to murder so why not make it legal. in the child porn instance it would be Cameras that you would be trying to ban and for rape, hell if I know... rope? tools not what they are used for.

[Phaxi]

Edit 2: ahh read your thing about rape and child porn. your off base. you just said people are going to murder so why not make it legal. in the child porn instance it would be Cameras that you would be trying to ban and for rape, hell if I know... rope? tools not what they are used for.

That argument is used against the pro gun argument that since people are going to break the law anyways (gun ownership), why make a law in the first place to prevent people from owning guns?

So as you see, I'm talking about the fail logic that is "people will break laws anyways, so why have them". And really, just use rape and murder as examples.

I use another argument for why guns, as a murder weapon, are so much more dangerous, effective and pointless to own. Camera's have a use besides child pornography, so do ropes. But guns? Used solely for killing something else. Wanna go hunting? Then I say you should be allowed to rent a gun, and give it back when you're done. Problem solved.

And of course this leads to the people have a right to defend themselves argument. Which I rebut with the fact that the chances of you being able to use a gun to defend yourself against the popular tactic of ambushing, is slim to none. And then I go on to mention the pointless deaths via guns that are not related to gangs. And then try to guilt you by saying I hope the gun you will probably never use in self defense was worth all those pointless deaths.

...Yea

[negitoro]

I use another argument for why guns, as a murder weapon, are so much more dangerous, effective and pointless to own. Camera's have a use besides child pornography, so do ropes. But guns? Used solely for killing something else. Wanna go hunting? Then I say you should be allowed to rent a gun, and give it back when you're done. Problem solved. Not that I disagree with you but just as a side point that typically hunting rifles are much less commonly used in crimes.

The majority of gun crime involve handguns (mainly due to the fact that you can easily carry and hide them).

[Mrdelta]

That argument is used against the pro gun argument that since people are going to break the law anyways (gun ownership), why make a law in the first place to prevent people from owning guns?

So as you see, I'm talking about the fail logic that is "people will break laws anyways, so why have them". And really, just use rape and murder as examples.

I use another argument for why guns, as a murder weapon, are so much more dangerous, effective and pointless to own. Camera's have a use besides child pornography, so do ropes. But guns? Used solely for killing something else. Wanna go hunting? Then I say you should be allowed to rent a gun, and give it back when you're done. Problem solved.

And of course this leads to the people have a right to defend themselves argument. Which I rebut with the fact that the chances of you being able to use a gun to defend yourself against the popular tactic of ambushing, is slim to none. And then I go on to mention the pointless deaths via guns that are not related to gangs. And then try to guilt you by saying I hope the gun you will probably never use in self defense was worth all those pointless deaths.

...Yea

ah, then we're on separate wavelengths and your still using bad examples.

drugs, or rape porn. these two items can be used in "right" ways and "wrong" ways.

your putting up straw men my friend, careful of that. self defense is a pointless defence I agree. if you want self defense learn martial arts, boxing, get a taser. I guess from your position your against other forms of closer combat weapons? knifes, swords, nun-chucks stuff like that?

yes in the US their are a lot of gun related deaths, in the UK as I understand it their are a lot of knife deaths. people die, people kill people. work to stop the deaths, work the punish the criminals, and work to protect the rights of the innocent. if you can do all three perfectly then you are living in a smaller, simpler city then I.

[Jammerjoint]

Though ridding the country of guns may not decrease the actual crime rate (it will slightly, but not significantly), it's important to remember that guns can greatly increase the scale of crimes and their potential impact. A sociopath with a machine gun is far preferable than a sociopath with a butter knife. I'm not saying everyone should be limited to butter knifes, but the point is that there is no real need for guns.

People say they need guns to protect themselves...but the question is from what. What could you possibly need a gun to protect yourself from? The only answer that comes to mind is other guns. If nobody has guns, then there's no need to protect yourself with one. Besides, even if you do have a gun, the chances you can access and use it before you get your own head blown off are very low. Some people think they need guns in the event some other country invades. That's ridiculous. You can think twice if you believe a handgun will stop a tank. In an emergency, it's enough to let the police and national guard have firearms. At least they know how to use them.

Crime is crime. Crime will continue for the same reasons it always has. Still, I think eliminating guns can really lower the death toll one criminal can cause. Right now, criminals and police have guns. If only the police have guns, then it makes it much easier for criminals to be subdued. That's two major ways the elimination of guns cuts down on the number of crime victims. Guns in households are really quite pointless in this day. If you hunt, big deal. Get a bow or something.

[Manhunter098]

I might be coming into this a little bit late, but how exactly is banning guns going to actually get rid of them? As far as I understand banning something is not the same as getting rid of it, and actually getting rid of something like guns is a task that would likely prove to be impossible.

Excuse me if I am being just a little too realistic though.

[Jammerjoint]

You phase them out. It's just like banning anything else. Set a timeline for stopping gun sale...by a certain date it will be illegal to sell. Then collect guns...set a timeline for removal from households. Those who don't comply will...obvioulsy...be arrested. Anybody else who keeps guns is just committing a crime. Punishments will likely be lenient at first, and then will become more severe as time passes. People will get used to it. How do you think currency gets changed? It's nowhere near impossible. The issue is getting an anti-gun law passed in the first place, with the NRA and everything.

[Manhunter098]

There is a significant demand for guns that would be used for criminal purposes, how exactly do you expect to curb that kind of demand for a gun? If banning guns will not actually effectively remove them from the hands of criminals, then it is certainly not useful to actually ban them for everyone else.

[Phaxi]

drugs, or rape porn. these two items can be used in "right" ways and "wrong" ways.


Drugs, yes, cause it is a vague term. Child pornography and rape. No. I even dare you to tell me when child porn and rape can be right.

There is a significant demand for guns that would be used for criminal purposes, how exactly do you expect to curb that kind of demand for a gun? If banning guns will not actually effectively remove them from the hands of criminals, then it is certainly not useful to actually ban them for everyone else.

By banning guns we eliminate many many pointless deaths caused by normal civilians. No more random misfirings, pissed off kids gunning down their school, racist fanatics killing cops, etc. Secondly, it gives the police a reason to arrest organized crocks (hard to believe a petty thief would be able to get their hands on an illegal firearm). With no gun control, criminals can carry fire arms and cannot be arrested until they've used it and even if you arrest them then, it'd be to late for the life they just ended. With gun control, only organized criminals would have guns. And since owning a gun would be illegal, it's off to jail for the bad people.

And finally, saying "well people will break the law anyways" is not a valid reason against that law if said law is beneficial for the general population. There will always be bad people in the world that use violence to get what they want, why make it so much easier for them?

[Jammerjoint]

Yes, Phaxi is absolutely right. You must remember that not all criminals are "career criminals," meaning not all of them have been criminals and will always be criminals. Most criminals arise from the general population due to some kind of stress factor. Besides gangs and the mob, which make up a rather small portion of all criminals, nobody's deliberately hoarding guns.

[Manhunter098]

Are you saying that gangs and mobs make up a small portion of criminals? I was under the impression that they made up a rather large portion of criminals, although their dealings often tend to be more secretive.

[Jammerjoint]

No, they are a rather small portion. Most criminals act independently, and many are one-time criminals. The man who went crazy and shot somebody, the money launderer, the identity thief, the petty thief. Despite what we are often made to think, most crimes are isolated. Gangs are mostly only present in urban areas, and gangs are often loose arrays of criminals that rarely hoard significant amounts of firearms. The mob is a very exclusive group with a very small number of members.

[negitoro]

There is a significant demand for guns that would be used for criminal purposes, how exactly do you expect to curb that kind of demand for a gun? If banning guns will not actually effectively remove them from the hands of criminals, then it is certainly not useful to actually ban them for everyone else.Just a quick point - you don't have to take the guns back from the criminals, you just have to prevent them from getting ammunition ;)

[Manhunter098]

Do you have anything to back up that claim? I have been looking around to see what percentage of actual crime is gang related and I have been getting rather mixed results.

[negitoro]

No, they are a rather small portion. Most criminals act independently, and many are one-time criminals. The man who went crazy and shot somebody, the money launderer, the identity thief, the petty thief. Despite what we are often made to think, most crimes are isolated. Gangs are mostly only present in urban areas, and gangs are often loose arrays of criminals that rarely hoard significant amounts of firearms. The mob is a very exclusive group with a very small number of members.The FBI seems to think differently.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/ngta020209.htm

Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the nation. Typical gang-related crimes include alien smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder, and weapons trafficking.

[Dragonsoultaker]

It really doesnt matter what the laws and authorities say. If i want a weapon i can get it (or if i want to rob someone or whatever) and no one can do anything about it. There are as many criminals as there is police oficers so check everyone to see if a crime is/was commited

[gigaloki]

i think the best way is still for the people to have control in themselves about this stuffs. are guns really necessities? no isn't it. only the vicious wants them, but if the vicious have them, others are endangered.

To Dragonsoultaker:

your post is something stupid. why would you want to rob or harm other persons. that is a sign of being inhuman in mind. we have reasonings so we do not have to do that.

we know that the police are incompetent, but we shouldn't make that a reason to abuse others.





I really hate people.


(from an anti-social)

[Mrdelta]

Drugs, yes, cause it is a vague term. Child pornography and rape. No. I even dare you to tell me when child porn and rape can be right.



By banning guns we eliminate many many pointless deaths caused by normal civilians. No more random misfirings, pissed off kids gunning down their school, racist fanatics killing cops, etc. Secondly, it gives the police a reason to arrest organized crocks (hard to believe a petty thief would be able to get their hands on an illegal firearm). With no gun control, criminals can carry fire arms and cannot be arrested until they've used it and even if you arrest them then, it'd be to late for the life they just ended. With gun control, only organized criminals would have guns. And since owning a gun would be illegal, it's off to jail for the bad people.

And finally, saying "well people will break the law anyways" is not a valid reason against that law if said law is beneficial for the general population. There will always be bad people in the world that use violence to get what they want, why make it so much easier for them?

you keep tossing children back into this. stop that. their is no way child porn can be justified same with rape. BUT rape porn done responsibly, with all participants as willing actors is no worse then a SAW movie. As for child porn and rape, I already told you, you're using bad examples. they do not equal out to this theoretical gun possession, they are red herrings and they weaken your argument.