Gun Control

[jackattack]

Then you are lucky to be alive. You don't shoot someone who is walking away from your house with a tv in the back. You shoot someone who after being warned doesn't leave and is dangerous. The average person who would break into an occupied home isn't a career burglar wearing a zebra striped shirt. They are probably on pcp or meth and would kill you without a second thought.

[Ginger_Warrior]

They are probably on pcp or meth and would kill you without a second thought.

 

That is a completely baseless generalisation. I suppose you're acquainted with convicted armed robbers, and would obviously know what they were on at the time?

 

 

 

For the matter, my house has also been robbed. They robbed my family when we were out of the house. Although obviously, a gun would have deterred the robbers, and prevented my imminent death. -.-

[jackattack]

^^ A career burglar looks for houses where no one else is home. That's why your house was robbed when you were out. Burglars are not dangerous. Anyone who would just force their way into an occupied house obviously is.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Burglars are not dangerous. Anyone who would just force their way into an occupied house obviously is.

 

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

[jackattack]

No it's not. When a crackhead breaks into your house and your in bed with your thumb up your [wagon] your in more danger than if you have a gun nearby, even with a trigger lock on it. What is a crackhead gonna do? Say 'wait here while I rob you' or kill you?

[Michael]

Burglars are not dangerous. Anyone who would just force their way into an occupied house obviously is.

 

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

 

 

 

Like having any weapon is.

[re4p3r1]

"if we didnt have guns then the king of england could come marching into our house and start pushing us around, is that what you want huh."

 

-homer simpson

[Range_This11]

No it's not. When a crackhead breaks into your house and your in bed with your thumb up your [wagon] your in more danger than if you have a gun nearby, even with a trigger lock on it. What is a crackhead gonna do? Say 'wait here while I rob you' or kill you?

 

I do believe this is the biggest

 

 

 

 

 

 

EVER.

 

 

 

Really, just re-read your post and see how ignorant you sound.

[zdavenz]

I never meant to create a concept that you should carry a gun 24/7 a pop everybody who gives you a bad look , I'm merely saying that people have every right to defend themselves IF they are in imment danger of death themselves, ergo someone breaks into your house they HAVE a gun POINTED at you or your family. If they arent trying to harm you, rather just steal your belongings, tell him/her to drop them and get him to stay nearby until the police arrive. In a nutshell, don't cause more harm then they are planning to cause.

 

©1700's, The United States Constitution. All Rights Reserved

[zdavenz]

Wait a minute...are you guys talking about taking guns outside? Taking them where ever you go? Because if thats the case, its quite foolish to do so. You're only looking for trouble. Keeping a gun in your house or under your shops' counter is the thing I'm talking about. Most likely that place of wealth is going to be assaulted than yourself outside.

 

This is my point exactly. Thank you. :thumbsup:

[RichieMcD]

There is some guns which I think should be completely outlawed. Assault rifles serve no use to society other than in the hands of a well trained law enforcement worker or army member. If a person is breaking into your house do you need a gun capable of firing 30 bullets in less seconds? No you don't.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned allow well trained and responsible citizens keep handguns for safety purposes in their home or in their business place. Don't just sell a gun to anyone, make them pass gun safety tests, look into their background, look for any minuscule reason why they shouldn't have a gun, if there is none then allow them to own a handgun or hunting rifle, is there any need for any other form of gun? No.

 

 

 

I still prefer living in Ireland where we have all guns outlawed other than hunting rifles ans very little gun problems, mostly only associated with the drug gangs of Dublin, than living in gun happy America.

[Giordano]

Wait a minute...are you guys talking about taking guns outside? Taking them where ever you go? Because if thats the case, its quite foolish to do so. You're only looking for trouble. Keeping a gun in your house or under your shops' counter is the thing I'm talking about. Most likely that place of wealth is going to be assaulted than yourself outside.

 

 

 

Even then, having a gun is useless. Why not just have something like a bat or some other melee weapon to use? None lethal, and you can still protect yourself, while having protection if you get close. In most cases you can escape with your life by simply giving a robber what they want. And why wouldn't you? What kind of person would value their possessions so much that they rather attempt to stop the robber and loose their own life rather then living another day and maybe loosing out on some money?

 

Well with a melee weapon the guy can step back 8-10 feet and he'll see any charges at him. Personally, I wouldn't want the robber to leave neither. The cops will take weeks to find the guy, if they do. And I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure I'm worth more than the scumbag who is trying to rob me. I'll shoot to get my stuff, and help society to imprision this low life. (Not kill, since the Feds will be anal about it later).

[zdavenz]

Wait a minute...are you guys talking about taking guns outside? Taking them where ever you go? Because if thats the case, its quite foolish to do so. You're only looking for trouble. Keeping a gun in your house or under your shops' counter is the thing I'm talking about. Most likely that place of wealth is going to be assaulted than yourself outside.

 

 

 

Even then, having a gun is useless. Why not just have something like a bat or some other melee weapon to use? None lethal, and you can still protect yourself, while having protection if you get close. In most cases you can escape with your life by simply giving a robber what they want. And why wouldn't you? What kind of person would value their possessions so much that they rather attempt to stop the robber and loose their own life rather then living another day and maybe loosing out on some money?

 

Well with a melee weapon the guy can step back 8-10 feet and he'll see any charges at him. Personally, I wouldn't want the robber to leave neither. The cops will take weeks to find the guy, if they do. And I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure I'm worth more than the scumbag who is trying to rob me. I'll shoot to get my stuff, and help society to imprision this low life. (Not kill, since the Feds will be anal about it later).

 

Dont hit him either cos thats just plain mean unless were talking cars, PS3's, etc. getting stolen.

[jackattack]

There is some guns which I think should be completely outlawed. Assault rifles serve no use to society other than in the hands of a well trained law enforcement worker or army member. If a person is breaking into your house do you need a gun capable of firing 30 bullets in less seconds? No you don't.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned allow well trained and responsible citizens keep handguns for safety purposes in their home or in their business place. Don't just sell a gun to anyone, make them pass gun safety tests, look into their background, look for any minuscule reason why they shouldn't have a gun, if there is none then allow them to own a handgun or hunting rifle, is there any need for any other form of gun? No.

 

 

 

I still prefer living in Ireland where we have all guns outlawed other than hunting rifles ans very little gun problems, mostly only associated with the drug gangs of Dublin, than living in gun happy America.

 

 

 

We have had an assault rifle ban for a long time and AK-47 deaths are on the rise. Even before the ban assault weapons were used in very few crimes and ones legally bought were almost nonexistent. Guns aren't the problem. The place is. If you compare Chicago with South Dakota. Chicago has 60 times as many murders as the entire state of South Dakota. They have a complete gun ban in Chicago. That's sure working out.

[Range_This11]

 

We have had an assault rifle ban for a long time and AK-47 deaths are on the rise. Even before the ban assault weapons were used in very few crimes and ones legally bought were almost nonexistent. Guns aren't the problem. The place is. If you compare Chicago with South Dakota. Chicago has 60 times as many murders as the entire state of South Dakota. They have a complete gun ban in Chicago. That's sure working out.

 

You're taking those facts completely out of context. Why don't you compare Chicago Pre-Gun Ban to Chicago Post-Gun Ban? Those stats would be a little bit more accurate. Oh wait, where did you even get those statistics? Care to share a link for us? To compare a majority rural state to a major gang related metropolis is absurd. Every time you type anything on this thread you just make yourself look like a bigger fool.

[jackattack]

^^ That was my point. That guns aren't the reason murders are higher. It's the area. Legal gun owners in South Dakota aren't the problem. Criminals in Chicago are.

 

 

 

Look at D.C. pre gun ban and post gun ban. Since the gun ban in D.C. was enacted in 1976 there has been only one year where crime was less than 1976 and many years where it was even double.

 

 

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

[Range_This11]

^^ That was my point. That guns aren't the reason murders are higher. It's the area. Legal gun owners in South Dakota aren't the problem. Criminals in Chicago are.

 

 

 

Look at D.C. pre gun ban and post gun ban. Since the gun ban in D.C. was enacted in 1976 there has been only one year where crime was less than 1976 and many years where it was even double.

 

 

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

 

Guns are the means by which murders are caused. You're basically trying to say that the only way that they should be banned is if it is acting on its own means. That's like saying to a family that had a person killed by a drunk driver that alcohol wasn't a main contributor to the death. All you're doing is trying to find a loophole in the way things are worded and in that, you're failing to see the big picture.

 

 

 

I asked you to compare Chicago pre and post gun ban, yet you produced irrelevant facts about Washington D.C. which is not even CLOSE to having the same amount of crime both historically and in the present day. Give me the numbers or your point is moot.

[zdavenz]

^^ That was my point. That guns aren't the reason murders are higher. It's the area. Legal gun owners in South Dakota aren't the problem. Criminals in Chicago are.

 

 

 

Look at D.C. pre gun ban and post gun ban. Since the gun ban in D.C. was enacted in 1976 there has been only one year where crime was less than 1976 and many years where it was even double.

 

 

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

 

If guns cause crime, pencils cause misspelled words.

 

Its the person not the pistol

[Giordano]

 

Well with a melee weapon the guy can step back 8-10 feet and he'll see any charges at him. Personally, I wouldn't want the robber to leave neither. The cops will take weeks to find the guy, if they do. And I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure I'm worth more than the scumbag who is trying to rob me. I'll shoot to get my stuff, and help society to imprision this low life. (Not kill, since the Feds will be anal about it later).

 

Dont hit him either cos thats just plain mean unless were talking cars, PS3's, etc. getting stolen.

 

Plain mean? The scumbag is trying to rob me for gods sake. Besides, if the guy doesn't have a gun I won't shoot at him just scare the $%#& outta him. Only shoot if you're being assualted.

[Range_This11]

 

If guns cause crime, pencils cause misspelled words.

 

Its the person not the pistol

 

Give the wrong person the means to kill a person and they'll succeed more times than not. If we take away the legal possession of hand guns, I can guarantee you that murders (THROUGH THE USE OF HAND GUNS) will decrease. Crime may not decrease, but that's not what we're debating. I ask it again: What is the point of owning a hand gun other than to injure or kill another human being?

[jackattack]

^^ To protect yourself. If you have a legal gun and the federal government breaks down your door and takes it not only is your door broken but your helpless against criminals. If it won't decrease murders why take away people ability to defend themselves? 2 million times a year guns are used in self defense.

 

 

 

Banning guns doesn't work. Criminals don't go 'oh well guns are illegal now I guess I won't kill that guy now'. They have illegal guns anyway. The guns aren't the problem the people are. In places where they crack down on illegal guns crime goes down. In places with strict gun control laws it either goes up or stays the same.

 

 

 

And that website only has states not individual cities so I can't get Chicago.. And I wouldn't say D.C. doesn't have the same crime rates. It's more than 3 times the size of D.C. There is a reason D.C. is known as the murder capital of the country.

[zdavenz]

 

If guns cause crime, pencils cause misspelled words.

 

Its the person not the pistol

 

Give the wrong person the means to kill a person and they'll succeed more times than not. If we take away the legal possession of hand guns, I can guarantee you that murders (THROUGH THE USE OF HAND GUNS) will decrease. Crime may not decrease, but that's not what we're debating. I ask it again: What is the point of owning a hand gun other than to injure or kill another human being?

 

Rodent Hunting, Personal Defense, Sport, and plain Fun (Shooting targets, mind you)

[das1330]

 

For the sake of this argument and the reasons you have put forward - It looks like I'm wrong, but I just don't see the need to carry a gun - it seems at though gun owners are overreacting to the danger. Still, (and I'm sorry for being 'narrow minded') however much you prove me wrong on paper, I'm afraid I'm not going to change my mind on this topic.

 

 

 

Think of carrying a concealed gun as a life insurance policy: its unlikely you will ever need it, but if you do you it would be a very, very good thing to have it.

 

 

 

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

 

 

 

Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid?

 

 

 

There is some guns which I think should be completely outlawed. Assault rifles serve no use to society other than in the hands of a well trained law enforcement worker or army member. If a person is breaking into your house do you need a gun capable of firing 30 bullets in less seconds? No you don't.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned allow well trained and responsible citizens keep handguns for safety purposes in their home or in their business place. Don't just sell a gun to anyone, make them pass gun safety tests, look into their background, look for any minuscule reason why they shouldn't have a gun, if there is none then allow them to own a handgun or hunting rifle, is there any need for any other form of gun? No.

 

 

 

The idea of banning "assault weapons" is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Looking through the list of features which define an "assault weapon" on just about any bill banning them shows this. For instance, looking through the (struck down) US assault weapons ban, one of the features banned was a barrel shroud - a piece of metal fitted around the weapon's barrel to keep the operator from accidentally touching the hot barrel and burning his/her hand. A more accurate title for an assault weapons ban would be "scary looking gun ban". As the Virginia tech shooter showed, handguns can be just as dangerous as any other weapon. The same goes with the DC sniper - he shot several people with a hunting rifle.

 

 

 

Give the wrong person the means to kill a person and they'll succeed more times than not. If we take away the legal possession of hand guns, I can guarantee you that murders (THROUGH THE USE OF HAND GUNS) will decrease.

 

 

 

You made a great point there. If you completely ban ALL guns of any type, then GUN deaths will decrease. People will move to different methods of killing each other (knives for instance). As several countries that have tried to ban guns have found out (chief among them the UK) humans are far too crafty when it comes to devising ways of killing each other.

 

 

 

Guns are the means by which murders are caused. You're basically trying to say that the only way that they should be banned is if it is acting on its own means. That's like saying to a family that had a person killed by a drunk driver that alcohol wasn't a main contributor to the death. All you're doing is trying to find a loophole in the way things are worded and in that, you're failing to see the big picture.

 

 

 

Guns do not cause crime, just as alcohol did not cause a drunk driving death. Peoples choices did. Both are inanimate objects. Alcohol is, in most cases, completely safe. When a person decides to use it then drive, then you have a problem - a problem with the PERSON using it, not the object itself. Prohibition showed banning alcohol is totally useless, which means that teaching people to consume alcohol safely is the only really effective way of reducing deaths. The same goes for guns. As various attempts at banning guns have shown, both in the US and in other countries, banning the object is useless for reducing crime. Reducing criminals that use the object in an unsafe manner is however an effective way of combating the problem.

 

 

 

 

I asked you to compare Chicago pre and post gun ban, yet you produced irrelevant facts about Washington D.C. which is not even CLOSE to having the same amount of crime both historically and in the present day. Give me the numbers or your point is moot.

 

 

 

Did you even read what he posted? DC had the highest murder rate in the US for more then 15 of the 30 years relevant to the enactment of the handgun ban there. In fact, the city experienced a HUGE increase in gun related deaths AFTER the ban was put into effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of person would value their possessions so much that they rather attempt to stop the robber and loose their own life rather then living another day and maybe loosing out on some money?

 

 

 

What kind of person would let a rapist/murder break into their house and rape/murder them? Every person on earth has the fundamental right to life. A gun is a tool. Its purpose is to protect life. Banning guns would be essentially banning people's right to defend themselves, which is fundamentally wrong.

[zdavenz]

 

For the sake of this argument and the reasons you have put forward - It looks like I'm wrong, but I just don't see the need to carry a gun - it seems at though gun owners are overreacting to the danger. Still, (and I'm sorry for being 'narrow minded') however much you prove me wrong on paper, I'm afraid I'm not going to change my mind on this topic.

 

 

 

Think of carrying a concealed gun as a life insurance policy: its unlikely you will ever need it, but if you do you it would be a very, very good thing to have it.

 

 

 

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do.

 

 

 

Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

 

 

 

Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid?

 

 

 

There is some guns which I think should be completely outlawed. Assault rifles serve no use to society other than in the hands of a well trained law enforcement worker or army member. If a person is breaking into your house do you need a gun capable of firing 30 bullets in less seconds? No you don't.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned allow well trained and responsible citizens keep handguns for safety purposes in their home or in their business place. Don't just sell a gun to anyone, make them pass gun safety tests, look into their background, look for any minuscule reason why they shouldn't have a gun, if there is none then allow them to own a handgun or hunting rifle, is there any need for any other form of gun? No.

 

 

 

The idea of banning "assault weapons" is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Looking through the list of features which define an "assault weapon" on just about any bill banning them shows this. For instance, looking through the (struck down) US assault weapons ban, one of the features banned was a barrel shroud - a piece of metal fitted around the weapon's barrel to keep the operator from accidentally touching the hot barrel and burning his/her hand. A more accurate title for an assault weapons ban would be "scary looking gun ban". As the Virginia tech shooter showed, handguns can be just as dangerous as any other weapon. The same goes with the DC sniper - he shot several people with a hunting rifle.

 

 

 

Give the wrong person the means to kill a person and they'll succeed more times than not. If we take away the legal possession of hand guns, I can guarantee you that murders (THROUGH THE USE OF HAND GUNS) will decrease.

 

 

 

You made a great point there. If you completely ban ALL guns of any type, then GUN deaths will decrease. People will move to different methods of killing each other (knives for instance). As several countries that have tried to ban guns have found out (chief among them the UK) humans are far too crafty when it comes to devising ways of killing each other.

 

 

 

Guns are the means by which murders are caused. You're basically trying to say that the only way that they should be banned is if it is acting on its own means. That's like saying to a family that had a person killed by a drunk driver that alcohol wasn't a main contributor to the death. All you're doing is trying to find a loophole in the way things are worded and in that, you're failing to see the big picture.

 

 

 

Guns do not cause crime, just as alcohol did not cause a drunk driving death. Peoples choices did. Both are inanimate objects. Alcohol is, in most cases, completely safe. When a person decides to use it then drive, then you have a problem - a problem with the PERSON using it, not the object itself. Prohibition showed banning alcohol is totally useless, which means that teaching people to consume alcohol safely is the only really effective way of reducing deaths. The same goes for guns. As various attempts at banning guns have shown, both in the US and in other countries, banning the object is useless for reducing crime. Reducing criminals that use the object in an unsafe manner is however an effective way of combating the problem.

 

 

 

 

I asked you to compare Chicago pre and post gun ban, yet you produced irrelevant facts about Washington D.C. which is not even CLOSE to having the same amount of crime both historically and in the present day. Give me the numbers or your point is moot.

 

 

 

Did you even read what he posted? DC had the highest murder rate in the US for more then 15 of the 30 years relevant to the enactment of the handgun ban there. In fact, the city experienced a HUGE increase in gun related deaths AFTER the ban was put into effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of person would value their possessions so much that they rather attempt to stop the robber and loose their own life rather then living another day and maybe loosing out on some money?

 

 

 

What kind of person would let a rapist/murder break into their house and rape/murder them? Every person on earth has the fundamental right to life. A gun is a tool. Its purpose is to protect life. Banning guns would be essentially banning people's right to defend themselves, which is fundamentally wrong.

 

 

 

You have not lived until you read this ^^. =D>

[Lenticular_J]

Mmm, most criminals in the United States do only do it to fuel drug habits, Ginger, dunno why you think that's a generalization. I've been near-assaulted several times by junkies who couldn't care less if I died, once I escaped by climbing up a fire escape, and the other two times were because we ran into my friend's house and got a gun. The two times we did that, it was the same group of junkies. I've never shot a man, but I have fired warning shots. I'm glad I did, I earnestly believe they would have killed me and my friends.

 

 

 

Sniper, great post.