Policeman Shot Dead

[greenslime89]

Some people argue that computer games let people release their violence safely.

 

The fact is that guns make killing easier. You can't deny that, can you? If you take away the guns wouldn't that make murder harder? I know that Britain has a gun ban. But it needs to be stronger. I think that guns should be demonised and not given to children as toys. I'm talking about the replica guns. If children see guns as what they are, killing machines, rather than what they are now, toys, perhaps they won't grow up thinking "guns are cool" and then attempt to get one. Illegaly or otherwise. Even guns that are legal can fall into the wrong hands. But if guns aren't legal then there would be fewer guns to fall into the wrong hands and cause more needless heartache. I'd like you to say that if a member of your family (god forbid) gets killed by a maniac with a gun, you'd still say that guns should be a common item in day to day life. By that I mean, you're going out so you do a quick check: "keys, wallet, mobile phone, gun". It shouldn't be like that. Would you really want everyone around you to carry a gun in the street? If they're only tools then they must be DANGEROUS because there are age restrictions on owning a gun. And to Barihawk who said that guns are no more weapons than a sock: If guns aren't weapons more than a sock, why aren't the army in Iraq killing Iraqi soldiers with socks? Guns are weapons, that can be used to kill animals for food perhaps but that doesn't make them any less able to kill another human in cold blood.

[Lovelydude]

Y'know green, it's only about two centimetres of a finger stretch to reach the enter key.

 

 

 

What is with all this defending of firearms. Sure, people kill with guns, but if you'd all pay attention, you'd realise that no-one gets a gun and kills people immediately, in most circumstances, the connection has never been so simple.

 

 

 

The situations and events happening in someone's life usually dictate whether or not they will be using a gun to kill people. Guns make it far too easy to fulfill desires. People are the culprits, yes, but guns are a tool designed for them to act out their purpose.

 

 

 

Sorry I'm so inarticulate. Sleepiness. D:

[Barihawk]

If someone has their heart bent on killing someone, they are going to do it. No matter what weapon they use.

 

 

 

The war in Iraq is not murder. Those are trained men fighting a war. It's a different situation.

[Lovelydude]

Barihawk, few people are actually "bent on killing" as you put it. Most are driven temporarily by rage, fear, etc.

 

 

 

Without guns less death and crime would occur.

[Barihawk]

You underestimate the black market.

 

 

 

Without guns, people would be defenseless against criminals, and they would have plenty of firepower.

 

 

 

It's a no-win situation.

[Satenza]

Barihawk, few people are actually "bent on killing" as you put it. Most are driven temporarily by rage, fear, etc.

 

 

 

Without guns less death and crime would occur.

 

 

 

Bari already said he is in favour of harsher vetting procedures on guns. Although, depends how effective the procedures are. I don't see how they could catch a good quantity of people really, and the blame would be shifted on the relaxed laws to the vetting procedure. It's a tough question liberty over life. Honestly i can't see why Bari supports the legality of things such as handguns, he always seems to be on the pro-life side if anything.

[Bubsa]

You underestimate the black market.

 

 

 

Without guns, people would be defenseless against criminals, and they would have plenty of firepower.

 

 

 

It's a no-win situation.

 

 

 

I don't know about that, mate. I think you underestimate a human's fight or flight stigma. I can think of plenty situations where an 'unarmed' person has apprehended a criminal. Of course, there are other factors, such as competence of the criminal and the area of the crime, but I wouldn't go so far as to say, without a gun, you're a helpless victim.

[rocketman089]

Also considering many murders are crime of passion, and not pre-meditated, the mental accuity deal is kind of moot. You can't necessarily spot who can be driven to kill by a cheating wife/whatever or not. Will those people find a knife instead? Probably, yeah. But I know that I stand a lot better chance of living when the weapon is a knife or a bat, than a .22 handgun.

[greenslime89]

If someone has their heart bent on killing someone, they are going to do it. No matter what weapon they use.

 

 

 

The war in Iraq is not murder. Those are trained men fighting a war. It's a different situation.

 

 

 

I never said it was murder. I'm all for the war in Iraq. I'm just saying that if a sock is as easy to kill a man with as a gun is - why aren't they using socks? They'd be a hell of a lot cheaper.

[Barihawk]

If someone has their heart bent on killing someone, they are going to do it. No matter what weapon they use.

 

 

 

The war in Iraq is not murder. Those are trained men fighting a war. It's a different situation.

 

 

 

I never said it was murder. I'm all for the war in Iraq. I'm just saying that if a sock is as easy to kill a man with as a gun is - why aren't they using socks? They'd be a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

 

 

It's in the philosophy of murder, not fighting a war. It's a different situation.

 

 

 

but I wouldn't go so far as to say, without a gun, you're a helpless victim.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that either. However, guns are fine for protecting homes, where you might have an aggressive criminal with a gun. I do not think all people on the street should have guns.

 

 

 

To be honest, a mandatory class on gun safety and use would have to be required as well :).

 

 

 

Honestly i can't see why Bari supports the legality of things such as handguns, he always seems to be on the pro-life side if anything.

 

 

 

I don't like them, but they are needed. The Second Amendment upholds all the rest. If the government were to excercise too much control over us, we the people would need to defend ourselves.

[greenslime89]

If someone has their heart bent on killing someone, they are going to do it. No matter what weapon they use.

 

 

 

The war in Iraq is not murder. Those are trained men fighting a war. It's a different situation.

 

 

 

I never said it was murder. I'm all for the war in Iraq. I'm just saying that if a sock is as easy to kill a man with as a gun is - why aren't they using socks? They'd be a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

 

 

It's in the philosophy of murder, not fighting a war. It's a different situation.

 

 

 

 

Okay. So here's a hypothetical scenario: You want to kill someone. For revenge. You look about your house for a weapon. Guns are legal. So you have your gun but you also have a knife. What are you going to pick to make murder easy? A gun or a kinfe? Obviously it would be a gun. You don't have to be right next to the victim for the kill. It's easier isn't it?

 

If you don't have a gun you're gonna have to pick the knife. This would give your victim a fighting chance. Since there are risks involved with the knife you might reconsider.

 

 

 

I'd like to see if you would say that if a member of your family (god forbid) gets killed by a maniac with a gun, you'd still say that guns should be a common item in day to day life.

 

 

 

I'm repeating the above sentence as no one has said that they would still blindly defend guns.

[Barihawk]

Knives are still a viable option. You forget that guns are loud. You are also assuming that the killer is meeting his victim face to face and both are aware of the impending attack.

 

 

 

Oh, and I only own one gun (a shotgun) that is kept in a safe in separate parts and kept away from the ammunition. I'd much rather hit someone else over the head with a putter than shoot them.

[assassin_696]

Americans are so sensitive about guns because it's your constitutional right, that sacred document that was written a few hundred years ago when America was a frontier nation.

 

 

 

Judging by the amount of gun crime in the US, the policy of "if everyone has one no one will shoot" doesn't work, because invariably not everyone has one and is capable and ready of using one when the time comes. Therefore, you have a society in which the dangerous criminals can easily and legally acquire a weapon designed to kill and use it against people who nearly always aren't similarly armed. I fail to see how it can be justified.

 

 

 

In the UK, gun control is tighter, yes there is a black market but because guns aren't freely available they tend to be much rarer, and hence gun crime is rarer. But guns only tend to fall into the hands of the most determined criminals, not the would be psychos or people who might go on revenge motivated killings etc.

[greenslime89]

You've yet to respond to the below sentence that I put in that post moments ago. I take it you wouldn't defend the legality of guns if a loved one was killed by gun violence?

 

 

 

I'd like to see if you would say that if a member of your family (god forbid) gets killed by a maniac with a gun, you'd still say that guns should be a common item in day to day life.

 

 

 

Guns are noisey but you can get silencers. I wasn't assuming they both knew of the attack but if you're up close to the victim and you don't kill them stealthily straight away, they will fight back or run. So using a gun would be better as it allows killing from a fair distance and you can shoot them in the back as they run.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I only own one gun (a shotgun) that is kept in a safe in separate parts and kept away from the ammunition. I'd much rather hit someone else over the head with a putter than shoot them.

 

 

 

So you don't have your gun for defence. Which you used as an argument:

 

 

 

Without guns, people would be defenseless against criminals, and they would have plenty of firepower.

 

 

 

So you don't want to use it for defence, you can buy food at the supermarket without the blood on your hands, so remind me, why do you have a gun?

[Barihawk]

If a member of my family was killed by a gun, I would be more concerned with them coming to justice.

 

 

 

I would feel the same way if they were killed by a knife, piano wire, or any other weapon. I'm not going to go off on an anti-knife chrusade.

 

 

 

My gun is for recreation. And hunters do not have "blood on their hands." What is a more humane and noble way for a creature to die? To be killed by a predator (in this case, a hunter) or be systematically slaughtered in a farm?

[Tigra00]

I don't believe anyone owes you an explanation as to WHY they have a gun.

 

 

 

He could have a shotgun for the same reason I have a shotgun - It was passed down my family. I've never shot it, even, but I still own it because it was given to me.

 

 

 

My dad won a .22 pistol as a door prize at some event. He still owns it, but he's never fired it. It's in a locked case in his closet. I've never even SEEN it myself.

 

 

 

People own guns for any reason they please. Some people just like to collect them. My grandpa has several pistols, including a golden .22 or .45 (I forget which) that has eagles and the American flag and stuff painted on it. He just owns it because it looks cool.

 

 

 

So to your question, would I still support guns if one of my family members was killed by one? YES. Obviously, I have the sense to realize that it isn't the gun that killed my family member, it's the individual. And even if they didn't have a gun, they would have found SOME way to kill them anyways!

 

 

 

And to those saying you should make guns illegal, period...Take this into account - Even if there WASN'T a black market for criminals (there would be, trust me), do you realize how easy it is to make a gun? Gang bangers in city's MAKE them all the time. They're usually just little 1-shotters, but people have been killed by them. So either way, you can't stop it.

[greenslime89]

My gun is for recreation. And hunters do not have "blood on their hands." What is a more humane and noble way for a creature to die? To be killed by a predator (in this case, a hunter) or be systematically slaughtered in a farm?

 

I only hope you eat your kill. The thing is that you're killing them unneccessarily, for pleasure, where as you could eat the meat sitting on the shelves of your local supermarket. You don't need to kill them you enjoy it. Do you like taking away a life of an inoccent animal? You're killing them for pleasure, not to eat them, your primary aim was to make you happy.

 

I don't think that the animal cares if it died nobley, it was killed. End of story. It doesn't matter how it is killed. Trust me. It still won't like it.

 

 

 

I don't believe anyone owes you an explanation as to WHY they have a gun.

 

 

 

Well it was out of curiosity as he had used defence as an argument and then said that he wouldn't use a gun in self defence.

 

 

 

So to your question, would I still support guns if one of my family members was killed by one? YES. Obviously, I have the sense to realize that it isn't the gun that killed my family member, it's the individual. And even if they didn't have a gun, they would have found SOME way to kill them anyways!

 

 

 

So if your family member was killed in a gun massacre similar to Dunblane or Virginnia Tech these wouldn't be people who want to kill a particular person, but just to kill. They wouldn't have found another way to kill so many so easily so they are less likely to carry it out. So in this hypothetical situation, you would have to think that if they hadn't had a gun they might not have killed your loved one. You're assuming that this hypothetical murder is premeditated, I was not.

[Tigra00]

Most murders are premeditated in one way or another.

 

 

 

Know what those shooters would have used to kill those people if they didn't have guns? Probably something worse. Explosives...Knives...Anything. Those murders were premeditated, they just weren't planned per person.

 

 

 

And again, yes, if someone in my family was killed by some [wagon] with a gun, I would not be rallying for anti-gun laws. Again, I'm aware that it's the person, not the gun. The ratio of people who responsibly own guns to those who kill with them has got to be like, 1000:1 at least, lol.

[greenslime89]

The ratio of people who responsibly own guns to those who kill with them has got to be like, 1000:1 at least, lol.

 

Don't make me say the statistics thing. Please don't. :P

[Tigra00]

What, that 98% of stats are made up on the spot? Yea, that's why I said it must be something like that, not that it is.

 

 

 

I'm sure it's much higher.

[greenslime89]

Yeah. I'm sure the ratio of owners to killers is something like that but, even one killer with a gun is too many. What I'm saying is that making guns legal gives people the opportunity to kill with ease. There always will be people who would go to the black market if guns were outlawed but I'd like to point out that the Virginnia Tech shooter bought his gun legally.

[ecopetition]

It's worth remembering that the majority of the users on Tip.It are indeed Americans, and after the world watched 32 students be executed at Virginia Tech a couple of weeks ago, it only reminds us of how America has an irate gun culture without any consideration for life.

 

 

 

Of course, then you can look at the murder rates caused by guns in America, 11000, compared with the UK's, less than 100. Do the maths:

 

 

 

Americas population: 300,000,000. Murders: 11000.

 

If the UKs population was 300,000,000 (it's only 60m); Murders: <600

 

 

 

------

 

 

 

America, you can't say that guns are good and that they protect people. The UK doesn't have legal guns and a lot less people die from them per year.

 

 

 

And to the idiot who thinks it's our human rights to protect ourselves - it's also our human rights to be protected. Guns do not fulfil that duty.

[Tigra00]

It's worth remembering that the majority of the users on Tip.It are indeed Americans, and after the world watched 32 students be executed at Virginia Tech a couple of weeks ago, it only reminds us of how America has an irate gun culture without any consideration for life.

 

 

 

Of course, then you can look at the murder rates caused by guns in America, 11000, compared with the UK's, less than 100. Do the maths:

 

 

 

Americas population: 300,000,000. Murders: 11000.

 

If the UKs population was 300,000,000 (it's only 60m); Murders: <600

 

 

 

------

 

 

 

America, you can't say that guns are good and that they protect people. The UK doesn't have legal guns and a lot less people die from them per year.

 

 

 

And to the idiot who thinks it's our human rights to protect ourselves - it's also our human rights to be protected. Guns do not fulfil that duty.

 

 

 

And what do you propose? Banning guns? Yea, good idea.

 

 

 

So .0000001% of America's population kills people with guns every year, and I'm willing to wager about half are not even US citizens? Ever heard of the Latin gangs in California/Chicago/Etc? Lots of murders, surely, and lots of illegal aliens, too!

 

 

 

Either way, it still leaves the 99.999999% of us with guns that don't kill people.

[ecopetition]

 

And what do you propose? Banning guns? Yea, good idea.

 

 

 

So .0000001% of America's population kills people with guns every year, and I'm willing to wager about half are not even US citizens? Ever heard of the Latin gangs in California/Chicago/Etc? Lots of murders, surely, and lots of illegal aliens, too!

 

 

 

Either way, it still leaves the 99.999999% of us with guns that don't kill people.

 

 

 

Get rid of ALL of the guns and hold on - ONE HUNDRED percent of people don't kill people with guns!

 

 

 

COOL!!! THAT'S EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE.

 

 

 

No there is no sarcasm here, it's common sense. So please, disembark the vehicle if you choose not to use your brain.

 

 

 

EDIT: Chill out, no need for name calling. ~assassin

[Tigra00]

 

And what do you propose? Banning guns? Yea, good idea.

 

 

 

So .0000001% of America's population kills people with guns every year, and I'm willing to wager about half are not even US citizens? Ever heard of the Latin gangs in California/Chicago/Etc? Lots of murders, surely, and lots of illegal aliens, too!

 

 

 

Either way, it still leaves the 99.999999% of us with guns that don't kill people.

 

 

 

Get rid of ALL of the guns and hold on - ONE HUNDRED percent of people don't kill people with guns!

 

 

 

COOL!!! THAT'S EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE.

 

 

 

No there is no sarcasm here, it's common sense. So please, disembark the vehicle if you choose not to use your brain. IDIOT!

 

 

 

Maybe you should use yours, hmm? Read the rest of the thread, perhaps? Huh? Yea, thought so.

 

 

 

Guess what is illegal almost universally on this Earth? Marijuana. Guess what people have anyways? MARIJUANA. Same goes for guns. You make them illegal, people WILL own them, and the ONLY people who have them will be the criminals.

 

 

 

Sound safer to you?