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.

 

 

 

People don't have this problem in other countries, unless 'rural' means really really really far away from the nearest police station I don't see why America should be any different. And hey, who cares about protecting a few possessions, if legal ownership of guns causes so many problems and so many deaths?

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.

 

 

 

People don't have this problem in other countries, unless 'rural' means really really really far away from the nearest police station I don't see why America should be any different. And hey, who cares about protecting a few possessions, if legal ownership of guns causes so many problems and so many deaths?

 

 

 

Exactly, very few countries where guns aren't legal have gun problems like America do. Most guns aren't legal here in Ireland, only hunting guns like Rifles and Shotguns are. The average farmer owns a shotgun to protect themselves from thieves and wildlife attacking their livestock. The last notable case I've heard of where a burglar was killed in Ireland by a farmer protecting himself was over 2 years ago, the last farmer killed in a break in with a gun carrying burglar was 3-4 years ago. Yet at least 3-4 deaths happen in America in these circumstances each week. Anyone want to counter-attack that with "guns make us safer" crap?

Even in countries where some guns are legal, most gun crime is done with illegal guns.

The police take forever. By the time they get there you'd be dead. Also the police don't have an obligation to protect you.

Statistics (and common sense) say that guns are used more often for suicides and homicides than for self defence. More lives are being taken then saved. In fact I'm pretty sure a majority of the time weapons are used for self defence are in convenient stores and other commonly robbed places. Seriously, in the past year I think I've only heard of 2-3 cases of a theif or murderer being injured in someone else's home because the homeowner had a gun handy. Besides, if you're held at gunpoint by a theif in your livingroom and your gun is locked up in your bedroom, I don't see how owning a gun in this case helps anything. Most sane law-breakers are not going to break into your home and allow you to move to your bedroom so you may grab a gun to fight back.

 

 

 

Besides, what do guns protect you from? Bad people... weilding GUNS? So guns basically fight guns (unless you're nice and lucky and the bad guy has a knife instead and you happen to be at a safe distance whereby you can shoot him without him hitting you first). If guns were off the street completely, then there would hardly ever be a murder unless the murderer uses more creative or risky ways to kill you. and as another person said, most gun crimes are done with illegal guns anyway.

Even in countries where some guns are legal, most gun crime is done with illegal guns.

 

 

 

Source?

I'm undecided on this area. I'd only fire a warning shot, but I wouldn't try to kill someone. Personally, I'd rather use an object and hit them in the torso area just to get a point across: Get out of the house.

Even in countries where some guns are legal, most gun crime is done with illegal guns.

 

 

 

Source?

 

It's more common sense than having an actual source. See every fire am, excluding shotguns, leaves an individual series of scratches in the bullet and every registered,a.k.a. legal gun, has these "fingerprints" in a database that police use to find the owner of the fire arm. The reason people use illegal/stolen fire arms is to not have a huge sign saying "hey, I did it" pointing right at them.

 

 

 

Personally I own two guns, both of which are used for hunting. I also had an uncle who collected guns, not to use, but to have because of their rarity. And trust me if guns were completely banned people would find other ways to kill each other. Humans have done it for a very long time and guns or no guns its not gonna change anytime soon.

 

Statistics (and common sense) say that guns are used more often for suicides and homicides than for self defence.

 

More lives are being taken then saved. In fact I'm pretty sure a majority of the time weapons are used for self defence are in convenient stores and other commonly robbed places. Seriously, in the past year I think I've only heard of 2-3 cases of a theif or murderer being injured in someone else's home because the homeowner had a gun handy. Besides, if you're held at gunpoint by a theif in your livingroom and your gun is locked up in your bedroom, I don't see how owning a gun in this case helps anything. Most sane law-breakers are not going to break into your home and allow you to move to your bedroom so you may grab a gun to fight back.

 

 

 

 

Source? Until you provide me that, just look at the chart I provided earlier in this thread, which showed that countries where weapons were legal violent crime was 5 times lower then in countries like the UK where a gun was difficult to legally get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, what do guns protect you from? Bad people... weilding GUNS? So guns basically fight guns (unless you're nice and lucky and the bad guy has a knife instead and you happen to be at a safe distance whereby you can shoot him without him hitting you first). If guns were off the street completely, then there would hardly ever be a murder unless the murderer uses more creative or risky ways to kill you.

 

 

 

Even in countries where guns are very difficult to legally get (like the UK), people still manage to get them. With some steel pipe from a hardware store, a manual downloaded off the internet and some basic tools you can make your own guns and ammo. Even in countries where guns are illegal, people still get killed at rates just as high as in countries where guns can be bought at walmart (again, read homicide rates of UK vs US). There, people are constantly using knives to kill each other just as effectively as guns can. While it may change tactics up a bit, humans are far too creative and determined to kill each other to actually find a way to ban all weapons.

 

 

 

and as another person said, most gun crimes are done with illegal guns anyway.

 

 

 

That is the entire point of the anti gun control argument. If the only guns used in crimes are illegal ones (and again, only a very small portion of guns used in crimes are legally purchased in the US) then whats the point of regulating legal arms? Aside from being unconstitutional, bans on legal guns have been shown to be ineffective in cities like Washington DC, where a (recently struck down) law was in effect banning all handguns inside the city. Despite that, DC had one of the highest murder rates in the entire US.

 

 

 

 

 

l0l0lpur32 wrote:

 

Even in countries where some guns are legal, most gun crime is done with illegal guns.

 

 

 

 

 

Source?

 

 

 

The US department of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

 

 

 

About 85% of guns used in crimes are bought illegally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, very few countries where guns aren't legal have gun problems like America do. Most guns aren't legal here in Ireland, only hunting guns like Rifles and Shotguns are. The average farmer owns a shotgun to protect themselves from thieves and wildlife attacking their livestock. The last notable case I've heard of where a burglar was killed in Ireland by a farmer protecting himself was over 2 years ago, the last farmer killed in a break in with a gun carrying burglar was 3-4 years ago. Yet at least 3-4 deaths happen in America in these circumstances each week. Anyone want to counter-attack that with "guns make us safer" crap?

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, why not. First off, we have Switzerland, where almost all males between the ages of about 18 and 50 have a select fire assault rifle issued to them as part of their militia service. Despite the fact that practically everyone in the country has access to guns, (2 million weapons for 7 million people) it has one of the lowest murder rates of industrialized countries in the world - In fact about the same as Japan, where gun ownership is totally illegal (source: http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Gov/morrison2.html) Additionally, while there is more crime in general in the US, it is also a MUCH, MUCH bigger country. Ireland has a population of about 6 million people (Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland) while the US has more then 300 million citizens. Beside that, show me an actual source that says that its been four years since a burglar broke into a house (which I highly doubt).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see how people lose common sense and somehow believe an inanimate object used to defend innocent people's lives somehow causes crime. Guns DO NOT cause crime, people DO. Fix the people problem, and you will fix the crime problem. Banning weapons only infringes on the basic human right to self defense, as has been shown in numerous countries it is totally ineffective in preventing crime (you British tipiters out there, look at your newspaper headlines, "ANOTHER PERSON KILLED BY KNIFE VIOLENCE!", obviously banning guns hasn't worked out too well, eh?)

Sniper, don't even mention Switzerland. They are monitored HEAVILY, and if the government finds one bullet outside of its casing when it comes time to meet up for training/duty, you will be in jail for a long long time. America no longer has a militia, and John Paul Stevens and I, see the second Amendment as obsolete in our current America as we have a standing army. It needs to be repealed so there is no longer a debate about its interpretation anymore.

(you British tipiters out there, look at your newspaper headlines, "ANOTHER PERSON KILLED BY KNIFE VIOLENCE!", obviously banning guns hasn't worked out too well, eh?)

 

 

 

And us British / European people could read American headlines and see "Another killed in gun related gang violence" and argue that the legality of guns worked out well, overall it's a [cabbage] argument, no side can win in it.

Sniper, don't even mention Switzerland. They are monitored HEAVILY, and if the government finds one bullet outside of its casing when it comes time to meet up for training/duty, you will be in jail for a long long time.

 

 

 

What part of "most guns used in crime are illegal" don't you understand? Besides, while military issued ammo there is regulated, ammo can be cheaply and easily bought at a regular gun store or shooting range.

 

 

 

 

 

America no longer has a militia, and John Paul Stevens and I, see the second Amendment as obsolete in our current America as we have a standing army. It needs to be repealed so there is no longer a debate about its interpretation anymore.

 

 

 

How is the right to self defense somehow outdated? All 10 of the amendments of the bill of rights are important, basic human rights. Getting rid of any of them would be a huge step back for society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And us British / European people could read American headlines and see "Another killed in gun related gang violence" and argue that the legality of guns worked out well, overall it's a [cabbage] argument, no side can win in it.

 

 

 

 

 

My point is that banning objects is useless in preventing crime. Sure, crime will continue without banning guns, but banning them does nothing to reduce crime (or even raises crime rates in some situations)

Statistics (and common sense) say that guns are used more often for suicides and homicides than for self defence.

 

More lives are being taken then saved. In fact I'm pretty sure a majority of the time weapons are used for self defence are in convenient stores and other commonly robbed places. Seriously, in the past year I think I've only heard of 2-3 cases of a theif or murderer being injured in someone else's home because the homeowner had a gun handy. Besides, if you're held at gunpoint by a theif in your livingroom and your gun is locked up in your bedroom, I don't see how owning a gun in this case helps anything. Most sane law-breakers are not going to break into your home and allow you to move to your bedroom so you may grab a gun to fight back.

 

 

 

 

I would highly doubt that. Just because they don't report it on the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That guy from Florida state found that there were 2 million times a year that guns were used in self defense.

I don't see how people lose common sense and somehow believe an inanimate object used to defend innocent people's lives somehow causes crime. Guns DO NOT cause crime, people DO. Fix the people problem, and you will fix the crime problem. Banning weapons only infringes on the basic human right to self defense, as has been shown in numerous countries it is totally ineffective in preventing crime (you British tipiters out there, look at your newspaper headlines, "ANOTHER PERSON KILLED BY KNIFE VIOLENCE!", obviously banning guns hasn't worked out too well, eh?)

 

 

 

 

 

So true, so so true. DING.

Take away guns - people will move to knives. Take away knives - people will move to metal bats. Take away metal bats - people will move to sharp pencils.

 

 

 

Just about anything can get the job done. Like stated before, guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Everyone here is basically saying "Guns kill people, America sucks!" "No, no guns kill people, (mostly) the UK sucks!"

 

 

 

But I believe that people will kill people no matter what. HOWEVER, guns make it alot easier to kill people. Whether you're defending yourself or attacking someone else.

Like stated before, guns don't kill people - people kill people.

 

This fact people seem to forget for some reason...

 

 

 

Take away guns - people will move to knives. Take away knives - people will move to metal bats. Take away metal bats - people will move to sharp pencils.

 

And truthfully, I would rather get killed by a gun than a bat. Much less pain.

Everyone here is basically saying "Guns kill people, America sucks!" "No, no guns kill people, (mostly) the UK sucks!"

 

 

 

But I believe that people will kill people no matter what. HOWEVER, guns make it alot easier to kill people. Whether you're defending yourself or attacking someone else.

 

 

 

Exactly. Either way if a person is intent on killing another person then it will happen, that's why America has so much gun related murders as there is easy access to guns and that's why Britain has so much knife related murders, since guns are hard to access they use knives instead. It's just easier to kill with a gun, you can hit them from a long distance and often it only takes 1 well placed bullet to kill someone. If a person wants to kill someone, then that person will get killed with some form of weapon, whether it's legal or not.

^^ America has a lot of gun related murders because of our make up. I forget where I saw this but with blacks removed the U.S. murder rate is lower than the U.K. and Germany. But think about it where are you more likely to get shot? San Francisco, Chicago, DC or Montana, Alaska, or Wyoming?

 

I wish Australia wasn't a [kitty] and made guns legal, i mean come on even airsoft is illegal!

 

I saw a group of dero* kids walking in a group when i was outside but they walked away when they saw me lol.

 

 

 

Please.We have a ban on porn.I've had some of my favorite sites blocked...We've also got a ban on basically anything you can use in a fight except knives :roll:

 

 

 

No illegal gathering,

 

No gambling,

 

Our classification for "drunk" is so awesome,when I was sober I failed the damn thing.

 

 

 

Yeah its true. You guys aren't even allowed GTA- so god knows your chances of getting guns legalised.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway I don't think guns should be legalised, there's too much which can go wrong by leaving the protection in the hands of the civilian. Fighting crime is the polices job. Running the hell away is the civilians job. :thumbsup:

(you British tipiters out there, look at your newspaper headlines, "ANOTHER PERSON KILLED BY KNIFE VIOLENCE!", obviously banning guns hasn't worked out too well, eh?)

 

 

 

Sorry I feel the urge to jump in and defend my country :P

 

 

 

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. (Source - http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm)

 

 

 

The American Population - roughly 300,000,000 people. (Source - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)

 

The British Population - roughly 70,000,000 people. (Source - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)

 

 

 

Therefore, even if you make up for the difference in population; 70 million goes into 300 million let's say 5 (I know, it's actually four and a bit...) times, multiply 19 by five is less than a hundred people. I'm pretty sure that's correct but I'm not very good at maths! Assuming it is, theoretically even if Britain had the same sized population as America, over 5000 more American children would have died due to firearms. Yes Britain is having big problems with gun/knife crime, 20 teenagers have been killed in the last year, but that's not very much in comparison to over 35 university students killed in university shooting sprees alone.

 

Also the illegality of guns and knifes make it easier for police to crack down on. If someone can own a gun, the police can't do anything until it's too late. If guns were illegal in the US, they could at least attempt to stop the problem before it takes place.

Australia doesn't need guns. They have Russell Crowe fightin round the world! ;)

(you British tipiters out there, look at your newspaper headlines, "ANOTHER PERSON KILLED BY KNIFE VIOLENCE!", obviously banning guns hasn't worked out too well, eh?)

 

 

 

Sorry I feel the urge to jump in and defend my country :P

 

 

 

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. (Source - http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm)

 

 

 

The American Population - roughly 300,000,000 people. (Source - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)

 

The British Population - roughly 70,000,000 people. (Source - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)

 

 

 

Therefore, even if you make up for the difference in population; 70 million goes into 300 million let's say 5 (I know, it's actually four and a bit...) times, multiply 19 by five is less than a hundred people. I'm pretty sure that's correct but I'm not very good at maths! Assuming it is, theoretically even if Britain had the same sized population as America, over 5000 more American children would have died due to firearms. Yes Britain is having big problems with gun/knife crime, 20 teenagers have been killed in the last year, but that's not very much in comparison to over 35 university students killed in university shooting sprees alone.

 

Also the illegality of guns and knifes make it easier for police to crack down on. If someone can own a gun, the police can't do anything until it's too late. If guns were illegal in the US, they could at least attempt to stop the problem before it takes place.

 

 

 

 

 

Since you need to mention the university shooting, just for the record that was in a gun free zone. If a student or teacher had a gun they wouldn't have been helpless.

 

 

 

If more people were in the NRA there would be less gun deaths among children.

EDIT

[hide=]

Source

 

 

 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

 

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

 

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

 

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

 

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

 

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

 

 

Two other sources I recommend if you wish to research the "other side" of gun control.

 

 

 

Gun Control - Cato Institute

 

http://cato.org/subtopic_display_new.ph ... 30&ra_id=9

 

 

 

Arguments against Gun Free Zones on College Campuses

 

http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm

 

 

 

I don't want to debate. My post here is only to explain the "other side" of gun control to those who honestly want to hear it, whether to strenghten their arguments for gun control or to change their mind completely.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Nice, well put and very clever argument :)

 

 

 

 

 

As for the bit in bold, though - the simple fact is, that people aren't using guns solely for self defence. If they were there wouldn't be 5000+ child deaths every year in the US due to firearms. Obviously people have a right to self defence - but no-one should have that right if they cant be trusted to use their weapons wisely - which it looks as though they can't. Plus, it's probably not the 80 year old ladies, or shy potential mugging victims who carry guns, is it?

 

 

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

 

 

 

I am in no way attempting to criticise anyone, but doesn't it say something about your society, or at least what your society will push you to do, that you have to carry a killing machine with you to feel safe? That can't be right... :?