The reason banning guns doesn't reduce crime is because criminals just buy weapons illegally.

Guns can be had on the "black market" and the underground markets. But i think the system in place now does a very good job of not selling guns legally to criminals and others convicted of certain crimes. Theres a good extensive background check before purchase. (At least here in SC).

 

 

 

HOWEVER. My one problem with guns right now is that here in SC, it is now LEGAL for an 18 year old to purchase a handgun. Thats crazy.

 

 

 

That ^ makes me jump on the bandwagon for that concealed carry movement going for college kids on campus. They want to allow college kids to pack some heat on campus in reguards to the VT shooting and many other horrible cases of on campus gunmen. I know i'd feel safer if i carried on campus. With this i think they should add training to the concealed carry licesne, like you must get certified at a range with this gun before getting the permit as well as be taught proper gun safety.

 

 

 

As for Police agencies, thats why they now have all the less then lethal weapons to take down suspects with. They are no longer forced with only 2 options of shoot or don't shoot. The bean bag guns, the rubber pellet guns and grenades, the tazers. I still think the officer should carry a real gun, but with all these other options, he no longer has to draw down on someone as a first option.

tbh holland pwns without guns, the more guns=less crime is just fantasy

 

(and holland also got prostitution and australia/england and america dont \ )

tbh holland pwns without guns, the more guns=less crime is just fantasy

 

(and holland also got prostitution and australia/england and america dont \ )

 

 

 

Certain places they do. Like Vegas has legal prostitution.

Why is that a good thing?

It's a barbaric and ancient philosophy that you should have the right to protect your property at the expense of someone else's life.

 

 

 

I do not believe in guns, but the gun culture in America is so ingrained that I don't see them leaving. However, people have been abusive of their 2nd amendment...even though (imo, as well as many on the Supreme Court Justices') it was never meant to be taken for what it is today.

 

 

 

No one comes in to kill your family randomly except for maybe Charles Manson. People come in to jack your [cabbage], and need to kill witnesses.

 

 

 

Besides, you don't need to shoot and kill like so many in this country do.

 

 

 

Many would kill over theft, and many have, because many seek vengeance. That's the problem with our gun culture, it goes beyond "protecting myself and my family". It has been disgustingly transfigured into the means to be a vigilante.

 

 

 

edit: article I found today...wow, a church :wall:

 

 

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/1 ... -giveaway/

tbh holland pwns without guns, the more guns=less crime is just fantasy

 

(and holland also got prostitution and australia/england and america dont \ )

 

 

 

Certain places they do. Like Vegas has legal prostitution.

 

 

 

I thought it was only the smaller counties of Nevada that had legal brothels. I'm pretty sure there's no legal prostitution in the Vegas city limits nor in the more populated Nevada counties, I may be wrong.

It's a barbaric and ancient philosophy that you should have the right to protect your property at the expense of someone else's life.

 

 

 

I do not believe in guns, but the gun culture in America is so ingrained that I don't see them leaving. However, people have been abusive of their 2nd amendment...even though (imo, as well as many on the Supreme Court Justices') it was never meant to be taken for what it is today.

 

 

 

No one comes in to kill your family randomly except for maybe Charles Manson. People come in to jack your [cabbage], and need to kill witnesses.

 

 

 

Besides, you don't need to shoot and kill like so many in this country do.

 

 

 

Many would kill over theft, and many have, because many seek vengeance. That's the problem with our gun culture, it goes beyond "protecting myself and my family". It has been disgustingly transfigured into the means to be a vigilante.

 

 

 

edit: article I found today...wow, a church :wall:

 

 

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/1 ... -giveaway/

 

So how do you propose people defend their property? What about people in rural areas where it can take a long time for the police to get there?

 

 

 

tbh holland pwns without guns, the more guns=less crime is just fantasy

 

(and holland also got prostitution and australia/england and america dont \ )

 

How is prostitution being legal a good thing?

It's a barbaric and ancient philosophy that you should have the right to protect your property at the expense of someone else's life.

 

 

 

I do not believe in guns, but the gun culture in America is so ingrained that I don't see them leaving. However, people have been abusive of their 2nd amendment...even though (imo, as well as many on the Supreme Court Justices') it was never meant to be taken for what it is today.

 

 

 

No one comes in to kill your family randomly except for maybe Charles Manson. People come in to jack your [cabbage], and need to kill witnesses.

 

 

 

Besides, you don't need to shoot and kill like so many in this country do.

 

 

 

Many would kill over theft, and many have, because many seek vengeance. That's the problem with our gun culture, it goes beyond "protecting myself and my family". It has been disgustingly transfigured into the means to be a vigilante.

 

 

 

edit: article I found today...wow, a church :wall:

 

 

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/1 ... -giveaway/

 

So how do you propose people defend their property? Especially people in rural areas where it can take a long time for the police to get there.

 

 

 

If your possessions mean so much to you that you're willing to kill another human-being over them, I'd say that they're the owner of you. I also just said that you could shoot someone without killing them, but most people have this obsession with retribution rather than exhibiting compassion, and are blood thirsty savage beasts just wanting to pull their trigger over and over in the name of "self-defense".

You're being idiotic carrying your "fake gun" around. Point it at someone and cops will be called. Cops will then suspect you as armed and dangerous and will not hesitate to shoot you if it looks like you'll point it at them or any other person. There have been events like this before, stupid kid carries fake gun around, stupid kid gets shot by cops, stupid kid dies.

 

 

 

Why do you want guns legalized so much? Just an easier way for a person to injure / kill another person. America has legalized gun ownership, it also has a huge reputation for being trigger happy. Want the same to happen where you live?

It's a barbaric and ancient philosophy that you should have the right to protect your property at the expense of someone else's life.

 

 

 

I do not believe in guns, but the gun culture in America is so ingrained that I don't see them leaving. However, people have been abusive of their 2nd amendment...even though (imo, as well as many on the Supreme Court Justices') it was never meant to be taken for what it is today.

 

 

 

No one comes in to kill your family randomly except for maybe Charles Manson. People come in to jack your [cabbage], and need to kill witnesses.

 

 

 

Besides, you don't need to shoot and kill like so many in this country do.

 

 

 

Many would kill over theft, and many have, because many seek vengeance. That's the problem with our gun culture, it goes beyond "protecting myself and my family". It has been disgustingly transfigured into the means to be a vigilante.

 

 

 

edit: article I found today...wow, a church :wall:

 

 

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/1 ... -giveaway/

 

So how do you propose people defend their property? Especially people in rural areas where it can take a long time for the police to get there.

 

 

 

If your possessions mean so much to you that you're willing to kill another being over them, I'd say that they're the owner of you.

 

No they aren't.

I personally wouldn't be able to fire a gun under any circumstance if a human being or an animal was on the other end of the barrel. So your question is kind of meaningless to me...although I'm speaking from my mind that's not set into "emergency" mode...

 

 

 

However, when it comes to this answer, I will quote Tenzin Gyatso:

 

 

 

Acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

 

 

 

You edited: yes they are.

Magekillr anyone who breaks into your house while you are home is probably dangerous and on meth. If they were actual burglars they wouldn't just break into a random house with people home. And if someone is trying to kill you you put them down. Unless your not an expert marksman who can shoot the gun out of their hands.

I mean no disrespect to Americans or America, (although I've never lived there, so ... ) but I personally would not be happy to live in a country where anyone could carry guns. As far as I can see it makes for a pretty hostile environment, maybe many people depend on their weapons. Knife crime is a massive problem in Britain at the mo, everyone's pretty scared about it. Knives are illegal, and there's been something like 20 murders in London since January? I hate to think what it would be like if they were legal...

 

 

 

Again as I said, I don't mean to criticise, knives are no better, but if the below facts are true (debatable) it's pretty damning evidence...

 

 

 

[hide=]

 

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.

 

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

 

Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)

 

Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998) America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

 

In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)

 

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

 

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

 

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

 

American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

 

[/hide]

^^ Some people are irresponsible and don't secure their weapons properly.

Statistically speaking, guns owned for "protection" more often kill innocent people in accidental shootings than they do criminals. I don't buy this self-defense jargon one bit.

^^ Why would that affect my right to defend myself?

Everyone should have some form of right to defend themselves but many take it to far. I'll try to find the source but I remember reading a article incorporating a poll where the majority of people who voted stated if a person entered their home, they would shoot to kill instead of to incapacitate. This poll was taken in America.

 

 

 

I don't see why the common person can't fire a warning shot. Any person clever enough will run as soon as a warning shot is fired, if they don't it is then a matter of life most likely and ok to shoot to incapacitate as your safety is at risk. This is quite often where to right to defend one's self is abused, people shoot to kill, that isn't defending yourself, that's eliminating the threat completely. A shot to the leg will most likely render the aggressor incapable of walking.

Everyone should have some form of right to defend themselves but many take it to far. I'll try to find the source but I remember reading a article incorporating a poll where the majority of people who voted stated if a person entered their home, they would shoot to kill instead of to incapacitate. This poll was taken in America.

 

 

 

I don't see why the common person can't fire a warning shot. Any person clever enough will run as soon as a warning shot is fired, if they don't it is then a matter of life most likely and ok to shoot to incapacitate as your safety is at risk. This is quite often where to right to defend one's self is abused, people shoot to kill, that isn't defending yourself, that's eliminating the threat completely. A shot to the leg will most likely render the aggressor incapable of walking.

 

 

 

This post is so full of win.

No they aren't.

Care to prove that claim? You're willing to kill to defend them but there's just inanimate objects replacable under insurance.

 

I'd say they own you if you're willing to kill to keep them.

People have the right to own weapons. I believe this is a fundamental law, and it should never change.

 

 

 

I do, however, agree with the points that kranked1 and magekillr are bringing up, though.

Everyone should have some form of right to defend themselves but many take it to far. I'll try to find the source but I remember reading a article incorporating a poll where the majority of people who voted stated if a person entered their home, they would shoot to kill instead of to incapacitate. This poll was taken in America.

 

 

 

I don't see why the common person can't fire a warning shot. Any person clever enough will run as soon as a warning shot is fired, if they don't it is then a matter of life most likely and ok to shoot to incapacitate as your safety is at risk. This is quite often where to right to defend one's self is abused, people shoot to kill, that isn't defending yourself, that's eliminating the threat completely. A shot to the leg will most likely render the aggressor incapable of walking.

 

 

 

This post is so full of win.

 

 

 

 

 

Someone on pcp won't be stopped by a shot to the leg.

 

 

 

EDIT: All I'm saying is that if someone broke into my home and I had a gun they'd get a "I've got a gun" then they would go down.

 

So how do you propose people defend their property? Especially people in rural areas where it can take a long time for the police to get there.

 

 

 

If your possessions mean so much to you that you're willing to kill another human-being over them, I'd say that they're the owner of you. I also just said that you could shoot someone without killing them, but most people have this obsession with retribution rather than exhibiting compassion, and are blood thirsty savage beasts just wanting to pull their trigger over and over in the name of "self-defense".

 

 

 

who says they need to kill the person? I myself would only shoot if neccessary, and only to whichever hand holds a weapon that could be used to kill me/someone else

I don't see how anyone can let some random [wagon] steal their stuff. I wouldn't want some guy breaking in my house, stealing my hard-earned possesons while he gets it with little effort. While I'm a contributing member of society this robber goes in and steals my stuff, not a contributing member now...so why give him the chance to go free?

 

 

 

Personally I wouldn't shoot to kill because that brings more problems, but for my 'second' shot I'll shoot him somewhere he'll really regret. :twisted:

tbh holland pwns without guns, the more guns=less crime is just fantasy

 

(and holland also got prostitution and australia/england and america dont \ )

 

 

 

Certain places they do. Like Vegas has legal prostitution.

 

 

 

I thought it was only the smaller counties of Nevada that had legal brothels. I'm pretty sure there's no legal prostitution in the Vegas city limits nor in the more populated Nevada counties, I may be wrong.

 

 

 

Just used it as a general reference.....like landmark.

 

 

 

Everyone should have some form of right to defend themselves but many take it to far. I'll try to find the source but I remember reading a article incorporating a poll where the majority of people who voted stated if a person entered their home, they would shoot to kill instead of to incapacitate. This poll was taken in America.

 

 

 

I don't see why the common person can't fire a warning shot. Any person clever enough will run as soon as a warning shot is fired, if they don't it is then a matter of life most likely and ok to shoot to incapacitate as your safety is at risk. This is quite often where to right to defend one's self is abused, people shoot to kill, that isn't defending yourself, that's eliminating the threat completely. A shot to the leg will most likely render the aggressor incapable of walking.

 

 

 

2nd rule of weapons safety as defined by the USMC. "Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." Shoot to kill not to wound, its the whole point of a gun.

 

 

 

However you must remember, a shot to the leg does not take out the aggressor's ability to still shoot you. Especially if he is hyped on various drugs. If he drops the gun and it is out of his control, sure keep the gun just trained on him. But as long as the hand clutches the gun, i'm firing.

 

 

 

Let me put this into perspective for all of you. Assuming you all are talking about handguns, since they are more manuvarable in close quarters such as a house and are usually used for defense. 1 bullet like MAYBE a half of an inch wide depending on caliber. Non lethal spots on the body are few and far between. Lets say the average human leg is about 6-7" maybe 8" at the thigh area? That gives you mear inches on either side as a non lethal strike zone. Femoral arteries in both legs. Then the arms, yeah good luck hitting those. Shoulder might work, but you are still working with minimal inches. Drop down a few inches and you hit lungs or other organs, right or left and you hit the throat or miss. The foot? Still, must have insanely good aim, and if its at night in a semi dark house or area....The back might work, but then you run into the whole Fleeing Felon laws...

 

 

 

Point is, you aim for the torso and/or head. They are the biggest targets on the body and will usually stop the criminal right there. Its meant to be a deadly shot.