Gun Control

[jackattack]

I forget what it's called but where some people who can legally buy a gun either buys a gun for someone who can't, or buys a lot of guns. Of the small number of guns that are bought legally and used in a crime some huge number all come from a small number of gun stores where people do that.

[anonymous1234]

 

I think that the one handgun a month law is a good one though. Not a limit on how many you can have but how many you can buy.

 

 

 

 

 

What is the point in limiting how many guns one can legally buy per month when they can go to their friendly neighborhood drug dealer and buy 20 guns illegally for the same price?

 

Hmm or since the person is getting multiple guns up front, there is a $50 charge per gun, and I *cough* I mean the drug dealer makes a living selling guns instead of drugs. I would love it for guns to be banned in the U.S, to civilians at least. I haven't read through the thread and I know I'm sounding stupid by saying this, but would police officers and the like still carry guns if they were outlawed? :?:

[Ginger_Warrior]

Hmm or since the person is getting multiple guns up front, there is a $50 charge per gun, and I *cough* I mean the drug dealer makes a living selling guns instead of drugs. I would love it for guns to be banned in the U.S, to civilians at least. I haven't read through the thread and I know I'm sounding stupid by saying this, but would police officers and the like still carry guns if they were outlawed? :?:

 

The police can go out with guns (they don't usually) over here. They do in France as well.

 

 

 

I've no problems with a policeman having a gun - they are enforcing the law. Your average citizen, even with training, is not going to use a gun responsibly, or use an alternative method when one is open however, due to the inherent irrationality that surrounds any circumstance they would possibly need to use it in self-defence.

 

 

 

I reiterate. We now have tasers, which disable a person long enough so the police CAN respond in time. Where is the need for a handgun now?

[Lenticular_J]

The average person would use a tazer a lot worse than a handgun. Odds are, the sight of a gun would scare away a criminal, but many tazers are completely unrecognizable as weapons. And if you hold it for too long (which isn't very long at all), the person will die very easily. Those things hurt like hell, and I was only shocked for a second or two. If it had touched my bare skin, even in a couple of seconds 2nd-degree burns could be possible (about 40% chance, the class teacher said).

[zdavenz]

Hey just a notice im going on vacation so dont ask me anything unless you want to wait about a month for an answer. For the past and future, I agree with guns. I also think people need to be at least 21 to own a non-hunting rifle,shotgun,etc. And even if they are 75, if they were ever involved in a life or death crime, or even a old lady mugging, they should be screened.

 

 

 

To sniperss:

 

I agree with you dude. Can i use the Al Capone pic from your siggy and put in mine please?

[jackattack]

Hmm or since the person is getting multiple guns up front, there is a $50 charge per gun, and I *cough* I mean the drug dealer makes a living selling guns instead of drugs. I would love it for guns to be banned in the U.S, to civilians at least. I haven't read through the thread and I know I'm sounding stupid by saying this, but would police officers and the like still carry guns if they were outlawed? :?:

 

The police can go out with guns (they don't usually) over here. They do in France as well.

 

 

 

I've no problems with a policeman having a gun - they are enforcing the law. Your average citizen, even with training, is not going to use a gun responsibly

 

 

 

 

 

How can you say that an average citizen wouldn't use a gun responsibly? There are something like 70 million gun owners in America. The huge majority of them are responsible.

[NoMoreDead]

 

So? They make nice collectors pieces. Besides, fully automatic weapons cost no less then 20,000$ and not one has been used in a crime since the 70's.

 

 

 

 

So somehow the fact that they make nice collector pieces makes it ok to own? I'm missing a step or two in logic here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am trying to decide here if you are joking or not - I mean a Tyrannical goverment. Looking back in history, even the most well laid out governments tend to get corrupt after a time, and fall into some form of dictatorship. An armed population tilts the odds of a successful revolt against such a goverment solidly in the people's favor.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, minus the fact that our well equipped army would run us over if we tried to overthrow the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? Someone does not need 30 guns to commit mass murder - It only takes one, possibly two. The only people who bother amassing a large collection of weapons are people that like collecting guns for their historical value, are target shooters or are into other things related to guns. Illegal activity by those people is negligible; not many people with several hundred thousand dollars to blow on their hobby go out robbing banks at night. If you can figure out a reasonable way to take guns out of criminals hands while not infringing on the general population's basic rights, then I (and indeed just about all gun lobby groups) are all for it. Banning guns that are used for totally legal purposes however is a huge waste of time and money, seeing as there is over 300 million legal guns in the US at the moment.

 

 

 

 

You're right, someone only needs one gun to create a tragedy. Why give them that chance?

 

 

 

 

The police DO do their best to protect you - the problem is that their best is not always good enough. People can not always depend on others for their protection - they must take responsibility for their own safety. Owning a gun is an effective deterrent when someone attacking you does not respond well to "appropriate non-violent measures". When it truly is a "me or him" situation, where there is no way out, I would much rather not be defenseless.

 

 

 

 

Putting a gun in your hands doesn't automatically make you safe. Suppose you miss shooting the attacker in the dark. Suppose you hit him non-fatally and you get hit fatally. Suppose you get killed in your sleep. Suppose the attacker fires first. There are too many if's involved. The are countless other things you can do to protect yourself without keeping an lethal weapon inside your home.

 

 

 

 

Do you actually believe it is possible to ban guns or knives to the point where criminals cannot get ahold of them? As many prisons show, even when a person's environment is completely controlled, people still find ways of getting weapons and killing each other. In prison, people have made knives out of steel files, tooth brushes, and even news paper and killed people with them. Making a gun is not much more difficult - with several hours, some pipe found at a hardware store and a manual downloadable off the internet you can make a gun. Hell, I have heard of people in prison making guns out of things like typewriters.

 

 

 

 

I absolutely believe that it is possible to ban guns and knives to this extent. Actually, stricter laws could go a long way in helping this along. How about a longer sentence for violating the law?

 

 

 

Oh, and honestly, if your going to kill a guy in prison, why not just do it with a "pointy toothbrush" instead of wasting your time making a gun. Honestly, if you're outside of prison, and you have a baseball bat or taser inside your house, and a man comes at you with a pointy toothbrush, I dare say he isn't much of a threat. Even a legitimate knife vs a taser or baseball bat spells out bad things for the attacker.

 

 

 

 

So you would rather sit there and get killed by some crazy person rather then arming yourself and protecting yourself?

 

 

 

 

Killed by a crazy person armed with what? I think that question has been answered above.

 

 

 

 

It makes confiscating LEGAL guns easier. If a gun has not, and never will be used in a crime (as more then 99.9% of legally owned guns are) then confiscating it is a waste of time and money and an infringement on the owner's rights. Figuring out if a gun is legal or not can be done in a matter of seconds just by looking at it, so there is no "cheating their way out of it". Banning guns is reducing the population of legal gun owners - it does nothing to get rid of illegal guns. Cracking down on illegal guns, however has been proven to be effective and is not opposed by anyone.

 

 

 

 

Here's where you contradict yourself. Remember this?:

 

 

Do you actually believe it is possible to ban guns or knives to the point where criminals cannot get ahold of them?

 

 

and then...

 

 

Cracking down on illegal guns, however has been proven to be effective and is not opposed by anyone.

 

 

 

 

Erm. I guess that really didn't register. Banning guns would undoubtibly crack down on illegal guns as well. Gun in sight? Gun goes bye-bye.

 

 

 

Reducing the number of illegal guns being used would be simple. Impose a larger sentence. I'd say 10 years in prison for carrying a firearm would slow it down pretty quickly, don't you?

 

 

 

 

Mostly burglars and murders, yes. While there are accidental deaths from guns, there is accidental deaths from everything - falling in the bathtub, firecrackers, hell about 20 people a year are killed by falling coconuts. The most effective way in preventing gun deaths related to accidents would be to educate kids about them, so that they are aware of the possible danger that they pose and know how to safely handle a gun.

 

 

 

 

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. "

 

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms"

 

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm."

 

 

 

(Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

 

 

 

Well, there goes a hell of a lot of crime.

 

 

 

Most of these weren't accidental, either. Guns are used moreso to attack than to protect.

 

A sensible study:

 

"A more reasonable estimate of self-defense gun use during burglary comes from a retrospective analysis of Atlanta police department reports. Examining home invasion crimes during a four-month period, researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into single-family dwellings when someone was at home (Kellermann et al. 1995). In only three cases (less than 2 percent) did a victim use a firearm in self-defense."

 

 

 

(Source: http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2746)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said in other posts, in most cases guns are not used to actually shoot someone, but are brandished to scare a potential attacker off. Anybody that carries a gun will tell you that actually shooting someone is a last resort, but carrying one to scare someone is pretty effective in keeping crime from occurring.

 

 

 

 

Uh, I think the above study will show otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Again, teaching gun safety to kids in the same way that kids are tought not to eat medicine that is not for them would go a long way in preventing accidental deaths.

 

 

 

You know what else would help reduce that statistic? Outlawing guns period. That would make the percentage of death's caused by accidents 0%.

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to keep guns around. The second amendment was passed in a time period where guns were the only effective method of protection avaliable. It is not so anymore. It's time to put these lethal objects in their graves.

[Range_This11]

Boom shaka-laka Boom shaka-laka THREADWIN.

 

 

 

How many worn out NRA supporters are going to fall at the bullet proof arguments of us anti-gun people. Guns are just not the answer.

[ididnotlol]

I live in britian, and i think that we should be allowed guns for safety, because when crazy phycotic teens want to kill, they do the next best think and get a knife (very easy to get), and quite frankly, i'd rather get shot by someone and die quicker, and may even have the chance to shoot them back, than be stabbed, and lay on the floor for half an hour waiting to freaking die.

[Lenticular_J]

Boom shaka-laka Boom shaka-laka THREADWIN.

 

 

 

How many worn out NRA supporters are going to fall at the bullet proof arguments of us anti-gun people. Guns are just not the answer.

 

If it was possible for every gun to be gone, completely, legal and illegal, as well as anything else that could kill someone, sure, your arguments would be "bulletproof".

 

 

 

But when the question is whether or not you'll be shot, stabbed, bashed, beaten, home-runned, hit-and-runned, mowed, etc, (Hm, that would be hard to make into a question), I'd rather have a weapon that can protect me and my family.

[issy2]

I live in britian, and i think that we should be allowed guns for safety, because when crazy phycotic teens want to kill, they do the next best think and get a knife (very easy to get), and quite frankly, i'd rather get shot by someone and die quicker, and may even have the chance to shoot them back, than be stabbed, and lay on the floor for half an hour waiting to freaking die.

 

 

 

Snap. I live in Britain too. When "crazy psychotic teens" (stupid stereotyp-er) want to kill you, you'll probably have a much better chance of survival when stabbed with a knife than killed with a gun. Are you saying if you're attacked you'd rather die than survive? Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick but thats what it seems like. Personally, if I had any chance of survival, I'd rather not lose my whole life. Anyway who do you think is going to be BUYING the guns?

[NoMoreDead]

Boom shaka-laka Boom shaka-laka THREADWIN.

 

 

 

How many worn out NRA supporters are going to fall at the bullet proof arguments of us anti-gun people. Guns are just not the answer.

 

If it was possible for every gun to be gone, completely, legal and illegal, as well as anything else that could kill someone, sure, your arguments would be "bulletproof".

 

 

 

But when the question is whether or not you'll be shot, stabbed, bashed, beaten, home-runned, hit-and-runned, mowed, etc, (Hm, that would be hard to make into a question), I'd rather have a weapon that can protect me and my family.

 

 

 

Why is it that we assume that everyone is going to be assualted at one point or another and having a gun is your only chance of survival?

 

 

 

Anyway, there are plenty of other objects that can be used to protect your family. You can also help prevent the crime before it happens by making sure you lock all your doors securely, and making sure all windows are shut. If you don't leave a robber/murderer a chance to access your home, then you can prevent the crime beforehand.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I live in britian, and i think that we should be allowed guns for safety, because when crazy phycotic teens want to kill, they do the next best think and get a knife (very easy to get), and quite frankly, i'd rather get shot by someone and die quicker, and may even have the chance to shoot them back, than be stabbed, and lay on the floor for half an hour waiting to freaking die.

 

Are they really psychotic? Think your answer carefully.

 

 

 

The unfortunate fact of the matter is behind most violent attacks against youths there is always some story leading up to the incident. They're not attacks by psychopaths who have finally snapped, or necessarily the result of single parenting as the common myth may be. Keeping out of fights will almost always see you through childhood without any cause for concern.

 

 

 

Hell, I went to the second-worst school in my city, and I never got involved in any attacks.

[l0l0lpur32]

I live in britian, and i think that we should be allowed guns for safety, because when crazy phycotic teens want to kill, they do the next best think and get a knife (very easy to get), and quite frankly, i'd rather get shot by someone and die quicker, and may even have the chance to shoot them back, than be stabbed, and lay on the floor for half an hour waiting to freaking die.

 

 

 

Only a very tiny amount of violent attacks are because of a "crazy phycotic" wanting to kill people.

[Lenticular_J]

Most violent attacks are actually by drug addicts wanting money for another bit of whatever they're addicted to, at least here in my city.

[Aneron]

I don't see any reason why it's necessary for a civilian to own a gun. And there are a lot of reasons they shouldn't.

 

 

 

Self defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting, investing, and the preventing the overthrow of democracy were mentioned.

 

 

 

In regard to self defense - I've never once in my life felt threatened enough to need a gun, and I certainly don't live in the best part of my city. For one thing you'd have to carry it around all the time in order to have it on hand when you need it - something that very few people do. Keeping it at home isn't going to help you when you wake up and there's a thief pointing a... gun... at you.

 

 

 

I see no reason why target shooting would be necessary in a country where civilians cannot own guns.

 

 

 

I consider my right to not get shot to be more important than your right to shoot squirrels.

 

 

 

I'm sure there are plenty items one could collect/invest in that are not deadly weapons.

 

 

 

And as for stopping a dictator from taking over America... you forget that all presidents must be elected. The same is true of senators. Military headhonchos must slowly climb the ranks, where anyone who shows interest in overthrowing America's government would in all likelihood be weeded out. Even if one crazy person managed to become commander-in-chief and ordered the burning of the constitution... do you think anyone would obey? Of course not.

[Lenticular_J]

You've never had deer burgers, have you?

 

 

 

:twss: I like that smiley.

[Zierro]

In regard to self defense - I've never once in my life felt threatened enough to need a gun, and I certainly don't live in the best part of my city. For one thing you'd have to carry it around all the time in order to have it on hand when you need it - something that very few people do. Keeping it at home isn't going to help you when you wake up and there's a thief pointing a... gun... at you.

 

 

 

That's not always the case though. Sometimes guns do save lives.

 

 

 

I see no reason why target shooting would be necessary in a country where civilians cannot own guns.

 

 

 

We are allowed to play Grand Theft Auto, but carjacking isn't legal. It's just for fun I guess.

 

 

 

I consider my right to not get shot to be more important than your right to shoot squirrels.

 

 

 

That I agree on. Hunting is just stupid if you ask me...

 

 

 

And as for stopping a dictator from taking over America... you forget that all presidents must be elected. The same is true of senators. Military headhonchos must slowly climb the ranks, where anyone who shows interest in overthrowing America's government would in all likelihood be weeded out. Even if one crazy person managed to become commander-in-chief and ordered the burning of the constitution... do you think anyone would obey? Of course not.

 

 

 

Anyone remember that South Park episode where the kids have to vote for a mascot? Also, why give the government more power than they already have?

[Aneron]

Not going to make a quote wall, but to address you points in general:

 

 

 

I'm sure that guns do save lives. However, I highly doubt that this compensates for the number of lives that they claim - as I pointed out, people eager to defend their homes aren't the only people who use them.

 

 

 

Grand Theft Auto is a video game, while target practice generally is done with real firearms. I've had no problem with a target practice video game, although it would kind of suck lol.

 

 

 

And I'd just like to point out that South Park is not always an accurate representation of the world at large. :P The only way a dictator can come to power is by winning the people of his country over to his side - not by waging war against them, which is the only thing guns would help us to do. If the people aren't behind the dictator, they aren't obeying him. And if they aren't obeying him, he's not in charge of the country - he's just a person who says he is. So I don't see how guns would help at all... not to mention that this whole scenario is wildly unlikely.

[das1330]

 

So? They make nice collectors pieces. Besides, fully automatic weapons cost no less then 20,000$ and not one has been used in a crime since the 70's.

 

 

 

 

So somehow the fact that they make nice collector pieces makes it ok to own? I'm missing a step or two in logic here.

 

 

 

 

 

You are. Why try to limit people from collecting harmless objects? If crime with one is nonexistent, then the only plausible reason you would want to ban it is because you don't like it. Preventing the goverment from banning something harmless just because it scares people or is not liked by some was one of the reasons the bill of rights was written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? Someone does not need 30 guns to commit mass murder - It only takes one, possibly two. The only people who bother amassing a large collection of weapons are people that like collecting guns for their historical value, are target shooters or are into other things related to guns. Illegal activity by those people is negligible; not many people with several hundred thousand dollars to blow on their hobby go out robbing banks at night. If you can figure out a reasonable way to take guns out of criminals hands while not infringing on the general population's basic rights, then I (and indeed just about all gun lobby groups) are all for it. Banning guns that are used for totally legal purposes however is a huge waste of time and money, seeing as there is over 300 million legal guns in the US at the moment.

 

 

 

 

You're right, someone only needs one gun to create a tragedy. Why give them that chance?

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a better idea - why don't you find a reasonable way that you can eliminate that chance? Since statistics show banning guns is pointless and past events have shown that you can commit mass murder with a pointy piece of metal, there is no reasonable way you can eliminate all of the effective weapons in a society. Even if you do, making a weapon is so laughably easy that your efforts to get rid of them is a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Putting a gun in your hands doesn't automatically make you safe. Suppose you miss shooting the attacker in the dark. Suppose you hit him non-fatally and you get hit fatally. Suppose you get killed in your sleep. Suppose the attacker fires first. There are too many if's involved. The are countless other things you can do to protect yourself without keeping an lethal weapon inside your home.

 

 

 

Suppose you get hit by a bus going to work in the morning. Suppose you trip on the sidewalk and break your neck. There is what if's in everything; but it is undeniable that in a house invasion situation having a handgun or shotgun is easily the most effective way of protecting yourself and your family and not getting killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I absolutely believe that it is possible to ban guns and knives to this extent. Actually, stricter laws could go a long way in helping this along. How about a longer sentence for violating the law?

 

 

 

Like I have said, programs instituting tougher minimum sentences on illegal weapons have been effective in reducing weapon carry rates among criminals. Now it has not reduced violent crime, but since the best reason for banning weapons is that you don't like them, I suppose that helps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and honestly, if your going to kill a guy in prison, why not just do it with a "pointy toothbrush" instead of wasting your time making a gun.

 

 

 

I can't tell you, I have never been in prison. But just the fact that it is possible to make a gun in a maximum security prison tells you just how easy it is to make a gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if you're outside of prison, and you have a baseball bat or taser inside your house, and a man comes at you with a pointy toothbrush, I dare say he isn't much of a threat. Even a legitimate knife vs a taser or baseball bat spells out bad things for the attacker.

 

 

 

The nice thing about weapons in general is that they equalize people, and force people to engage each other nonviolently. With no weapons, the physically strong will rule the weak, as they did in ancient times. If there is no capable means of self defense available, then we return to barbarism. If a 200 pound man attacks a small woman on the street with the intent of killing her, assuming there are no weapons on either side, that woman will die nine times out of ten. Now give both the criminal and the citizen a handgun - the odds are at 50/50. They did not nickname the revolvers of old "the equalizer" as a joke. No sane criminal attacks someone that just might be able to kill them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Killed by a crazy person armed with what? I think that question has been answered above.

 

 

 

Killed by a crazy person armed with an illegal gun, which is entirely likley based on the experiences of Australia, Japan and the UK, killed by a home made gun by your attacker in his spare time, killed by a kitchen knife, or killed by a sharpened toothbrush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It makes confiscating LEGAL guns easier. If a gun has not, and never will be used in a crime (as more then 99.9% of legally owned guns are) then confiscating it is a waste of time and money and an infringement on the owner's rights. Figuring out if a gun is legal or not can be done in a matter of seconds just by looking at it, so there is no "cheating their way out of it". Banning guns is reducing the population of legal gun owners - it does nothing to get rid of illegal guns. Cracking down on illegal guns, however has been proven to be effective and is not opposed by anyone.

 

 

 

 

Here's where you contradict yourself. Remember this?:

 

 

Do you actually believe it is possible to ban guns or knives to the point where criminals cannot get ahold of them?

 

 

and then...

 

 

Cracking down on illegal guns, however has been proven to be effective and is not opposed by anyone.

 

 

 

 

Erm. I guess that really didn't register. Banning guns would undoubtibly crack down on illegal guns as well. Gun in sight? Gun goes bye-bye.

 

 

 

Reducing the number of illegal guns being used would be simple. Impose a larger sentence. I'd say 10 years in prison for carrying a firearm would slow it down pretty quickly, don't you?

 

 

 

 

 

How is any part of that contradictory? I acknowledged that imposing tougher sentences on illegal weapons was effective in reducing criminal's carrying of guns, but just because criminals don't have guns does not mean they are not killing people. Even when you get rid of them, crime rates do not change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mostly burglars and murders, yes. While there are accidental deaths from guns, there is accidental deaths from everything - falling in the bathtub, firecrackers, hell about 20 people a year are killed by falling coconuts. The most effective way in preventing gun deaths related to accidents would be to educate kids about them, so that they are aware of the possible danger that they pose and know how to safely handle a gun.

 

 

 

 

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. "

 

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms"

 

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm."

 

 

 

(Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

 

 

 

Well, there goes a hell of a lot of crime.

 

 

 

Why do you somehow think that a gun is a magical object that kills people on it's own? People kill people, not guns. Had guns been unavailable, just about every one of those murderers would have used a different weapon. As it stands, since more then 90% of those guns used in crime are illegal anyway, further bans would do nothing but infringe on the constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of these weren't accidental, either. Guns are used moreso to attack than to protect.

 

A sensible study:

 

"A more reasonable estimate of self-defense gun use during burglary comes from a retrospective analysis of Atlanta police department reports. Examining home invasion crimes during a four-month period, researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into single-family dwellings when someone was at home (Kellermann et al. 1995). In only three cases (less than 2 percent) did a victim use a firearm in self-defense."

 

 

 

(Source: http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2746)

 

 

 

 

You have a very small, older study there based on a four month period with only 200 crimes total, and posted on an anti - gun website. I cited a m broader study done that covered all of the crime in the entire United States. Do you see a problem here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh, I think the above study will show otherwise.

 

 

 

 

You mean the quote from the anti gun group you cited and called a study?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, teaching gun safety to kids in the same way that kids are tought not to eat medicine that is not for them would go a long way in preventing accidental deaths.

 

 

 

You know what else would help reduce that statistic? Outlawing guns period. That would make the percentage of death's caused by accidents 0%.

 

 

 

 

 

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to keep guns around. The second amendment was passed in a time period where guns were the only effective method of protection avaliable. It is not so anymore. It's time to put these lethal objects in their graves.

 

 

 

The second amendment was passed in a time when people needed an effective means of defending themselves. At the time, guns were the most effective means of self defense. Today, people still need to defend themselves, and guns are still the most effective means of self defense. The amendment was passed to ensure people's ability to defend themselves would never be taken away. It is still applicable, and I can guarantee you that it will not be repealed in either of our lifetimes.

[NoMoreDead]

 

You are. Why try to limit people from collecting harmless objects? If crime with one is nonexistent, then the only plausible reason you would want to ban it is because you don't like it. Preventing the goverment from banning something harmless just because it scares people or is not liked by some was one of the reasons the bill of rights was written.

 

 

I find it completely laughable that you refer to them as "Harmless". I think you made my case for me.

 

 

 

 

Here's a better idea - why don't you find a reasonable way that you can eliminate that chance? Since statistics show banning guns is pointless and past events have shown that you can commit mass murder with a pointy piece of metal, there is no reasonable way you can eliminate all of the effective weapons in a society. Even if you do, making a weapon is so laughably easy that your efforts to get rid of them is a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

Knife incidens are exponentially less likely to be used in mass murder. Remember Columbine? How about Virginia Tech? How about the war in Iraq?

 

 

 

You don't have to eliminate ALL weapons in society, because it's simply not possible, but you can eliminate the one that kills more people than any other.

 

 

 

 

Suppose you get hit by a bus going to work in the morning. Suppose you trip on the sidewalk and break your neck. There is what if's in everything; but it is undeniable that in a house invasion situation having a handgun or shotgun is easily the most effective way of protecting yourself and your family and not getting killed.

 

 

Your "what-if" scenarios are completely irrelivant. It is NOT "undeniable" that the most effective way of saving your life is by keeping a gun in your house. Preventing a crime before it happens is the best way to keep your family safe. I think I've been very clear on this fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nice thing about weapons in general is that they equalize people, and force people to engage each other nonviolently. With no weapons, the physically strong will rule the weak, as they did in ancient times. If there is no capable means of self defense available, then we return to barbarism. If a 200 pound man attacks a small woman on the street with the intent of killing her, assuming there are no weapons on either side, that woman will die nine times out of ten. Now give both the criminal and the citizen a handgun - the odds are at 50/50. They did not nickname the revolvers of old "the equalizer" as a joke. No sane criminal attacks someone that just might be able to kill them.

 

 

And If everyone had a gun, no criminal would attack someone without a gun. I think that eliminating guns completely would make a hell of a lot more sense than having the common citizen walking around with a gun 24/7. More guns = More gun related deaths.

 

 

 

 

Killed by a crazy person armed with an illegal gun, which is entirely likley based on the experiences of Australia, Japan and the UK, killed by a home made gun by your attacker in his spare time, killed by a kitchen knife, or killed by a sharpened toothbrush.

 

 

This is exactly why having no guns in the country would benefit us greatly.

 

 

 

Another thing I don't understand: Why is it that you always refer to the attacker as a "Crazy Person"? I find it funny that this "Crazy person" is always (in your scenarios) intent on killing you at all costs and is always superior to your victim physically. It seems like in all of your scenarios, you neglect to mention how the criminal put the victim in this situation, and why the victim has no other options.

 

 

 

[hide=]

 

Here's where you contradict yourself. Remember this?:

 

 

Do you actually believe it is possible to ban guns or knives to the point where criminals cannot get ahold of them?

 

 

and then...

 

 

Cracking down on illegal guns, however has been proven to be effective and is not opposed by anyone.

 

 

 

 

Erm. I guess that really didn't register. Banning guns would undoubtibly crack down on illegal guns as well. Gun in sight? Gun goes bye-bye.

 

 

 

Reducing the number of illegal guns being used would be simple. Impose a larger sentence. I'd say 10 years in prison for carrying a firearm would slow it down pretty quickly, don't you?

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

How is any part of that contradictory? I acknowledged that imposing tougher sentences on illegal weapons was effective in reducing criminal's carrying of guns, but just because criminals don't have guns does not mean they are not killing people. Even when you get rid of them, crime rates do not change.

 

 

 

 

If you cannot see why those two statements are completely contradictory, then I cannot help you. Perhaps, however, it explains why you still insist that guns do more good than bad. Contrary to the evidence that guns kill more people than they help, you assume the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you somehow think that a gun is a magical object that kills people on it's own? People kill people, not guns. Had guns been unavailable, just about every one of those murderers would have used a different weapon. As it stands, since more then 90% of those guns used in crime are illegal anyway, further bans would do nothing but infringe on the constitution.

 

 

 

 

Just about all of those murderers would use a different weapon? You base that statement off of...what exactly? I guess that goes back to your outrageous suggestions that every burgler is a killer.

 

 

 

Another thing I've started to ponder. What does it matter if the gun is illegally used or not? I simply don't get it. You make it out as if since the gun is illegally used, it negates the fact that it is a gun, and it killed someone. You can tell me all you want that implementing gun control wouldn't do anything to stop criminals, but I think that you're flat out wrong. Implementing a longer jail sentence for simply carrying a gun would do a lot to crack down on the amount of guns used in violent crime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have a very small, older study there based on a four month period with only 200 crimes total, and posted on an anti - gun website. I cited a m broader study done that covered all of the crime in the entire United States. Do you see a problem here?

 

 

 

 

Yes, I do. Your statistics we're inflated. The stats you provided included incidents where guns were used simply presented during a crime.

 

 

 

 

You mean the quote from the anti gun group you cited and called a study?

 

 

No, I mean the study that was conducted in an area with a high crime rate that ended up showing statistics completely against what you assume to be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

 

Desipite the fact that if illegal drugs were indeed legalized, you would see a definate increase in those rates.

 

 

 

 

The second amendment was passed in a time when people needed an effective means of defending themselves. At the time, guns were the most effective means of self defense. Today, people still need to defend themselves, and guns are still the most effective means of self defense. The amendment was passed to ensure people's ability to defend themselves would never be taken away. It is still applicable, and I can guarantee you that it will not be repealed in either of our lifetimes.

 

 

 

"New" effective means of protection which do not involve using any form of weaponry:

 

-Alarm systems

 

-Padlocks

 

-Strikemasters

 

-Electric fence

 

 

 

Other effective "weapons":

 

-tasers

 

-baseball bats

 

-Pretty much every other blunt object

[Ginger_Warrior]

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all.

[Lenticular_J]

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all.

 

It's an example. So many arguments against guns are based on the belief that outlawing guns would make the deaths from them nonexistent.

[magekillr]

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all.

 

It's an example. So many arguments against guns are based on the belief that outlawing guns would make the deaths from them nonexistent.

 

 

 

Really? Who says that?

[jackattack]

By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them.

 

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all.

 

 

 

There were around 8,000 murders using guns in 2005. Put that into context.