Gun Control

[user1991]

I think it's quite telling that here in the UK (where guns are controlled really strictly) - we have much better gun crime statistics than over the pond in the USA.

[x1992x]

On the G W part:Get over it,it was more that 200 years ago,the need of wearons has been decreased,then in the days,it was needed to shot wild animals foor food and a living,nowadays

 

They shoot eachoter to pieces if the one dont likes the other :wall:

 

 

 

if no citizens had guns what is to stop the government from sending in the army and saying no more voting. Look at countries like north Korea, do you think it would be a dictatorship if the citizens could fight the army?

 

 

 

The second amendmant in America was put in place to prevent the government from using the army on civilians

 

 

 

we got no guns in Denmark but yet there is no one breathing down my neck or telling me what to do :wall:

[magekillr]

The second amendment has been violated in this country-not from gun bans, but from people abusing their "god given right" to own a gun. John Paul Stevens and I would agree that the second Amendment was put in place not to own guns the way we think of today, but for a standing militia in a grave time of war against Indians, the possibility of the British coming back again (and they did in 1812), and the fact that you hunted for your food.

 

 

 

I personally cannot wait for the day it's repealed so there's no longer a debate about "What the Founders meant"...

 

 

 

I'm so throwing a party when that day comes :thumbsup: \

[Lenticular_J]

Thinking one of the Bills of Rights will be repealed is complete naivete (I can't remember how to make that little flourish).

[jackattack]

The second amendment has been violated in this country-not from gun bans, but from people abusing their "god given right" to own a gun. John Paul Stevens and I would agree that the second Amendment was put in place not to own guns the way we think of today, but for a standing militia in a grave time of war against Indians, the possibility of the British coming back again (and they did in 1812), and the fact that you hunted for your food.

 

 

 

I personally cannot wait for the day it's repealed so there's no longer a debate about "What the Founders meant"...

 

 

 

I'm so throwing a party when that day comes :thumbsup: \

 

 

 

 

 

Well Antonin Scalia and I would agree that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun. It's pretty clear wording. And they can't really appeal the second amendment because that would be unconstitutional. So you might be waiting a while to have a party.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The second amendment has been violated in this country-not from gun bans, but from people abusing their "god given right" to own a gun. John Paul Stevens and I would agree that the second Amendment was put in place not to own guns the way we think of today, but for a standing militia in a grave time of war against Indians, the possibility of the British coming back again (and they did in 1812), and the fact that you hunted for your food.

 

 

 

I personally cannot wait for the day it's repealed so there's no longer a debate about "What the Founders meant"...

 

 

 

I'm so throwing a party when that day comes :thumbsup: \

 

 

 

 

 

Well Antonin Scalia and I would agree that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun. It's pretty clear wording. And they can't really appeal the second amendment because that would be unconstitutional. So you might be waiting a while to have a party.

 

I can't understand your argument here. A constitutional right's existence is justified by its... existence?

 

 

 

Why can't you altar the constitution? It's been done on many an occasion in US history.

[user1991]

The second amendment has been violated in this country-not from gun bans, but from people abusing their "god given right" to own a gun. John Paul Stevens and I would agree that the second Amendment was put in place not to own guns the way we think of today, but for a standing militia in a grave time of war against Indians, the possibility of the British coming back again (and they did in 1812), and the fact that you hunted for your food.

 

 

 

I personally cannot wait for the day it's repealed so there's no longer a debate about "What the Founders meant"...

 

 

 

I'm so throwing a party when that day comes :thumbsup: \

 

 

 

 

 

Well Antonin Scalia and I would agree that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun. It's pretty clear wording. And they can't really appeal the second amendment because that would be unconstitutional. So you might be waiting a while to have a party.

 

I can't understand your argument here. A constitutional right's existence is justified by its... existence?

 

 

 

Why can't you altar the constitution? It's been done on many an occasion in US history.

 

 

 

Cause guns are our God given right!

 

 

 

They're so divine, Jesus Christ would actually be a sniper. He would DEFINITELY approve of gun ownership. And if he didn't, it wouldn't matter, cause it's not like he's God or anythin--- oh wait.

[jackattack]

I meant appeal to the second amendment. My bad.

[Range_This11]

I meant appeal to the second amendment. My bad.

 

Ah right, so what you're saying is since it would be "Unconstitutional" to appeal the Constitution, we can never EVER appeal it? Damn it I really didn't want these laws to exist for all eternity!

[jackattack]

I meant appeal to it. As in making another law banning guns appealing to the second amendment saying that it meant militias because it's been interpreted now. It could be repealed but thats probably not going to happen.

[Lenticular_J]

Congress simply wouldn't allow the second amendment to be repealed. Never, in the history of the United States, has the Bill of Rights been altered. And I can assure you, as long as the Congress is not completely of the same mind, it will not. Not to mention the protests across the nation, which could even evolve into riots. Absolute worst case scenario, damn near a civil war.

[NoMoreDead]

Congress simply wouldn't allow the second amendment to be repealed. Never, in the history of the United States, has the Bill of Rights been altered. And I can assure you, as long as the Congress is not completely of the same mind, it will not. Not to mention the protests across the nation, which could even evolve into riots. Absolute worst case scenario, damn near a civil war.

 

 

 

I completely disagree with this thought process. The Bill of Rights HAS been altered. It has been added to numerous times. It is absolutly plausable that the Bill of Rights will be altered.

 

 

 

Congress would be in it's right mind to institute gun control. In other countries where similar policies have been adopted, the results have been fantastic. Honestly, what's the point of owning a gun anyway? Saftey? I disagree. Most studies find that guns are rarely used for saftey purposes. Guns also kill about 30,000 people a year (and that's just within the United States, not counting war). Also, in most instances that guns are actually used to save people, it is likely that another gun is the weapon being used to put the defensive person's life in danger.

 

 

 

Riots? Protests? I certainly disagree. I don't understand why people are so willing to have civil liberties such as privacy taken away, but are not willing to have objects capable of killing people removed from society. I just don't understand what you base this scenario off of. A civil war? That seems a little drastic. I'd say that a very small minority of people would really care so much that they would resort to violence.

 

 

 

Besides, if guns were indeed removed, what would we go to war with? :

[jackattack]

Congress simply wouldn't allow the second amendment to be repealed. Never, in the history of the United States, has the Bill of Rights been altered. And I can assure you, as long as the Congress is not completely of the same mind, it will not. Not to mention the protests across the nation, which could even evolve into riots. Absolute worst case scenario, damn near a civil war.

 

 

 

I completely disagree with this thought process. The Bill of Rights HAS been altered. It has been added to numerous times. It is absolutly plausable that the Bill of Rights will be altered.

 

 

 

Congress would be in it's right mind to institute gun control. In other countries where similar policies have been adopted, the results have been fantastic. Honestly, what's the point of owning a gun anyway? Saftey? I disagree. Most studies find that guns are rarely used for saftey purposes. Guns also kill about 30,000 people a year (and that's just within the United States, not counting war). Also, in most instances that guns are actually used to save people, it is likely that another gun is the weapon being used to put the defensive person's life in danger.

 

 

 

Riots? Protests? I certainly disagree. I don't understand why people are so willing to have civil liberties such as privacy taken away, but are not willing to have objects capable of killing people removed from society. I just don't understand what you base this scenario off of. A civil war? That seems a little drastic. I'd say that a very small minority of people would really care so much that they would resort to violence.

 

 

 

Besides, if guns were indeed removed, what would we go to war with? :

 

 

 

The original bill of rights hasn't been changed. And how can you say guns are rarely used for safety purposes? 2 million times a year isn't that rare.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The original bill of rights hasn't been changed. And how can you say guns are rarely used for safety purposes? 2 million times a year isn't that rare.

 

Are you seriously telling me that violent crime is so ridiculously high in America that a gun is absolutely necessary for self-defence 2 million times a year?

[Range_This11]

The original bill of rights hasn't been changed. And how can you say guns are rarely used for safety purposes? 2 million times a year isn't that rare.

 

Are you seriously telling me that violent crime is so ridiculously high in America that a gun is absolutely necessary for self-defence 2 million times a year?

 

This figure has been discussed before. His stats say "2 Million cases of using a gun for self defense every year" is based upon when a gun is *held* or shown during an altercation, not even fired, and using a very SMALL sample size.

 

 

 

My statistic that I found was under 50,000 per year where the gun was actually fired; and that INCLUDED when a police officer used it. Also the study I found was taken over a number of years, not just one, and the person had a great deal higher sample size.

 

 

 

If you want to say 2 million, then you might as well let people just have fake guns instead of real ones. Using a gun is FIRING IT, not holding it.

[das1330]

 

I completely disagree with this thought process. The Bill of Rights HAS been altered. It has been added to numerous times. It is absolutly plausable that the Bill of Rights will be altered.

 

 

 

The bill of rights has never been altered. (source)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congress would be in it's right mind to institute gun control. In other countries where similar policies have been adopted, the results have been fantastic.

 

 

 

Obviously you didn't bother actually reading the thread, since in earlier posts I have shown numerous occasions where other countries (particularly Austrailia and the UK) have had massive increases in violent crime after they banned guns. The same goes with areas in the US. Washington DC's recently struck down handgun ban has done nothing whatsoever to curb crime in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, what's the point of owning a gun anyway? Saftey? I disagree.

 

 

 

Self defence, target shooting, hunting, collecting, as an investment - there is plenty of reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most studies find that guns are rarely used for saftey purposes.

 

 

 

*yawn* again, read the other posts in this thread before you bother posting. There has been studies showing about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US - no small number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guns also kill about 30,000 people a year (and that's just within the United States, not counting war).

 

 

 

Your point is? If we completely eliminated guns from the entire country (as in impossibly get rid of all firearms in the entire country) we would just have 30,000 more knife deaths. Humans are quite resourceful in killing each other and banning people from legally owning weapons is not going to stop them.

 

 

 

 

Also, in most instances that guns are actually used to save people, it is likely that another gun is the weapon being used to put the defensive person's life in danger.

 

 

 

So? How does banning weapons change that? Do you expect criminals to turn in their (already illegal) guns to the police with all the law abiding citizens?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Riots? Protests? I certainly disagree. I don't understand why people are so willing to have civil liberties such as privacy taken away, but are not willing to have objects capable of killing people removed from society.

 

 

 

The current laws that "take away privacy" are totally useless against law abiding citizens - you have to be living in the Middle East for your phone to be tapped. Banning guns only effects people that abide by the law - criminals have not been allowed to own guns for over 200 years, what is going to make them give up their weapons now? And banning all "objects capable of killing people" is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. First we will need all the rocks in the country (you could hit someone with it!), then your computer (you could throw it at someone!), then your clothes (they could strangle people!), then your car (you could run people down!), then any land you may own (you could use it to hide dead bodies!) etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, if guns were indeed removed, what would we go to war with? :

 

 

 

And there you have just hit on a basic reason why banning weapons is NOT acceptable. If people do not have the ability to defend themselves, then if anything from a tyrannical goverment to an invasion by a foreign power occurs, then people have no means of resisting that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you seriously telling me that violent crime is so ridiculously high in America that a gun is absolutely necessary for self-defence 2 million times a year?

 

 

 

It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't understand your argument here. A constitutional right's existence is justified by its... existence?

 

 

 

A constitutional right's existence is justified by its use in protecting a basic human right - the right to self defense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My statistic that I found was under 50,000 per year where the gun was actually fired; and that INCLUDED when a police officer used it. Also the study I found was taken over a number of years, not just one, and the person had a great deal higher sample size.

 

If you want to say 2 million, then you might as well let people just have fake guns instead of real ones. Using a gun is FIRING IT, not holding it.

 

 

 

Having a gun used in self defense is defined as preventing a crime from occurring. Pointing a handgun at someone intending to kill you is surprisingly effective in getting them to GTFO. If it has prevented a crime (be it an assault, murder, rape, burglary etc) it has done its job - protected its user. Actually shooting someone is a last resort. As for giving people toy guns, it has been effective. In England, so much crime has been committed with airsoft guns (used because they look like real guns in some cases) that their goverment is actually considering banning them (Source). Don't you think something is wrong when people are banning harmless toys or pointy kitchen knives (Source) in the name of "reducing crime"?

[Range_This11]

Don't you think something is wrong when people are banning harmless toys or pointy kitchen knives (Source) in the name of "reducing crime"?

 

I think it says that if they're on the verge of banning toy guns, that maybe the real guns should be banned in the first place.

[Ginger_Warrior]

 

Besides, if guns were indeed removed, what would we go to war with? :

 

 

 

And there you have just hit on a basic reason why banning weapons is NOT acceptable. If people do not have the ability to defend themselves, then if anything from a tyrannical goverment to an invasion by a foreign power occurs, then people have no means of resisting that.

 

Errr... what? Have you never heard of a Home Guard? Or even an Army, or a Navy?

 

 

 

 

Are you seriously telling me that violent crime is so ridiculously high in America that a gun is absolutely necessary for self-defence 2 million times a year?

 

 

 

It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source)

 

So?

 

 

 

What relevance does that have to the point I was making?

 

 

 

A gun is not necessary for the purpose of self-defence. A taser is just as effective, doesn't kill and cannot effectively be used as an offensive weapon.

 

 

 

 

I can't understand your argument here. A constitutional right's existence is justified by its... existence?

 

 

 

A constitutional right's existence is justified by its use in protecting a basic human right - the right to self defense.

 

You have a right to self defence. This does not equate to a right to owning a gun. Since you're into making jibes at the UK's crime record, you might want to examine our laws of self defence in closer detail.

 

 

 

In England, so much crime has been committed with airsoft guns (used because they look like real guns in some cases) that their goverment is actually considering banning them (Source). Don't you think something is wrong when people are banning harmless toys or pointy kitchen knives (Source) in the name of "reducing crime"?

 

I know... to think we actually feel taking weapons out of people's hands is a good idea. :roll:

 

 

 

What's telling is that hardly anyone in England opposes this idea either.

 

 

 

Frankly, your blasé attitude towards these 'harmless weapons' is an insult to the families of these dead people:

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 523317.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7522826.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 518751.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 512920.stm

[magekillr]

Even tasers are being abused by those in power Ginger:

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/22/tas ... nnSTCVideo

 

 

 

However, I'd much rather people own those than guns.

[reaper88888]

We don't need gun control, we need bullet control. Let every single one of those crazy militia types have as many assault rifles and smgs as they want, and let them spew patriotism out of their arses every single second. Just don't give them any ammo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, I think I might be fine without gun control in ONE situation: Every single person who choses to own a gun is shut up into Montana, and we run up a fence around the state border with armed guards. Then we let natural selection take care of the rest.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that you don't need a freaking automatic weapon to defend your family and home. The 2nd amendment was written in a time when the most advanced firearms were blackpowder rifles, when the militias WERE the army. We have a very large, overfunded army now. We don't need militias. As for the whole 'removing the government' stuff, most people who are opposed to gun control tend to be at the very least, mildly conservative. Y'know, same general political ideology as the current government. Or were you referring to the possibility of a liberal government?

 

 

 

 

 

Listen, I'm not saying ban all weapons, I'm saying that people should be restricted to something normal, say two handguns and two hunting rifles as the maximum. And if anyone actually had the guts and strength of arms to take down the U.S., they would: A) Probably put in a better, less corrupt government than we have now. And B) They, along with most of the world would most likely go up in a cloud of radioactive dust when some moron in our military infrastructure pushed the big red button.

[issy2]

 

Honestly, what's the point of owning a gun anyway? Saftey? I disagree.

 

 

 

Self defence, target shooting, hunting, collecting, as an investment - there is plenty of reasons.

 

 

 

Self defence - No, as will be later discussed in this post. As long as police do their best to protect you - and it seems ridiculous that people have suggested they don't, in which case there's your problem - all you need is a little street cred and appropriate non-violent measures towards safety. Safety can be achieved any numbers of ways, and responding with violence is not one of them.

 

 

 

 

Most studies find that guns are rarely used for saftey purposes.

 

*yawn* again, read the other posts in this thread before you bother posting. There has been studies showing about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US - no small number.

 

 

 

As NoMoreDead said, most of those occurences will happen when the attacker has a gun. I know you'll respond with "Those guns are illegal anyway, so it doesn't matter" but I disagree. If people know guns are basically always illegal in the public population, police can crack down on guns as soon as the problem starts. They see a gun, or hear about them - they know its illegal and the problem is hopefully abolished before it's too late, before someone has pressed a trigger too quickly.

 

 

 

 

Guns also kill about 30,000 people a year (and that's just within the United States, not counting war).

 

Your point is? If we completely eliminated guns from the entire country (as in impossibly get rid of all firearms in the entire country) we would just have 30,000 more knife deaths. Humans are quite resourceful in killing each other and banning people from legally owning weapons is not going to stop them.

 

 

 

Knives are illegal too, therefore, ^. So once you've got rid of guns and knives, what do you have? Baseball bats maybe? Which are going to be far less effective in killing people but most likely just as good self defence. A gun used in self defence is likely to kill someone, and that's murder. It would be easy for guns to get into the wrong hands, children are killed all the time by American guns, far too easy to kill too soon. Let the police take care of you. The worst thing you could do is take the law into your own hands.

 

 

 

 

Also, in most instances that guns are actually used to save people, it is likely that another gun is the weapon being used to put the defensive person's life in danger.

 

So? How does banning weapons change that? Do you expect criminals to turn in their (already illegal) guns to the police with all the law abiding citizens?

 

As I already said, if basically all guns are illegal, it makes confiscating them easier. If someone's got a gun there's almost no way they can cheat their way out of it, the gun gets confiscated, end of, before its too late. But I'm not saying banning guns is the only solution - in this case cracking down on illegal guns would be just as useful.

 

 

 

 

Riots? Protests? I certainly disagree. I don't understand why people are so willing to have civil liberties such as privacy taken away, but are not willing to have objects capable of killing people removed from society.

 

 

 

The current laws that "take away privacy" are totally useless against law abiding citizens - you have to be living in the Middle East for your phone to be tapped. Banning guns only effects people that abide by the law - criminals have not been allowed to own guns for over 200 years, what is going to make them give up their weapons now? And banning all "objects capable of killing people" is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. First we will need all the rocks in the country (you could hit someone with it!), then your computer (you could throw it at someone!), then your clothes (they could strangle people!), then your car (you could run people down!), then any land you may own (you could use it to hide dead bodies!) etc.

 

 

 

So I'm sure those 5000+ children killed every year are all killed by burglars and murders, are they? With a gun its so easy to accidentally take someone's life, criminals aren't the only people who kill with guns.

 

As for your totally useless (in my opinion) attempt at irony, just wtf? Guns are better killers than rocks.

 

 

 

 

Besides, if guns were indeed removed, what would we go to war with? :

 

 

 

And there you have just hit on a basic reason why banning weapons is NOT acceptable. If people do not have the ability to defend themselves, then if anything from a tyrannical goverment to an invasion by a foreign power occurs, then people have no means of resisting that.

 

 

 

Britain is managing fine. Don't be so paranoid, sure a foreign power MIGHT invade but even if they do, isn't it worthless making guns legal just for that? If an invasion by a foreign power is the only advantage for owning guns, you've got yourself a pretty useless argument.

 

 

 

 

Are you seriously telling me that violent crime is so ridiculously high in America that a gun is absolutely necessary for self-defence 2 million times a year?

 

It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source)

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from looking at the link you posted you seem to be implying that Britain and Wales should make guns legal to counteract the sudden uprise in violent crime? If so, I'm sorry but that would be the worst possible thing to happen to our country, considering whats happening with gun crime already. If guns were legal few people would want to buy them except young men in gangs who go around killing each other. Here in Britain the solution to violent crime would not be providing victims with the power to kill their attacker, it is in preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

I personally think guns should not necessarily be banned, but heavily restricted, and people should be encouraged not to leave them in stupid places where their children will get them, and certainly not to use them until a very last resort.

[johntm]

Win.

[das1330]

 

The bottom line is that you don't need a freaking automatic weapon to defend your family and home.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2nd amendment was written in a time when the most advanced firearms were blackpowder rifles, when the militias WERE the army. We have a very large, overfunded army now. We don't need militias. As for the whole 'removing the government' stuff, most people who are opposed to gun control tend to be at the very least, mildly conservative. Y'know, same general political ideology as the current government. Or were you referring to the possibility of a liberal government?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listen, I'm not saying ban all weapons, I'm saying that people should be restricted to something normal, say two handguns and two hunting rifles as the maximum.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Self defence - No, as will be later discussed in this post. As long as police do their best to protect you - and it seems ridiculous that people have suggested they don't, in which case there's your problem - all you need is a little street cred and appropriate non-violent measures towards safety. Safety can be achieved any numbers of ways, and responding with violence is not one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most studies find that guns are rarely used for saftey purposes.

 

*yawn* again, read the other posts in this thread before you bother posting. There has been studies showing about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US - no small number.

 

 

 

As NoMoreDead said, most of those occurrences will happen when the attacker has a gun. I know you'll respond with "Those guns are illegal anyway, so it doesn't matter" but I disagree. If people know guns are basically always illegal in the public population, police can crack down on guns as soon as the problem starts.

 

 

 

Police DO crack down on illegal guns, and it is already well documented that banning legal guns does nothing to help police get rid of illegal ones.. In fact in the few cities where there has been an effective minimum sentence imposed on possession of an illegal weapon (Boston) criminal ownership of illegal guns was cut in half. Measures like that are actually effective on cutting criminal gun ownership rates, and they do not require that people's rights be taken away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knives are illegal too, therefore, ^. So once you've got rid of guns and knives, what do you have? Baseball bats maybe? Which are going to be far less effective in killing people but most likely just as good self defence.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A gun used in self defence is likely to kill someone, and that's murder.

 

 

 

 

A gun used in self defence is a man defending himself, not murder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let the police take care of you. The worst thing you could do is take the law into your own hands.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I already said, if basically all guns are illegal, it makes confiscating them easier. If someone's got a gun there's almost no way they can cheat their way out of it, the gun gets confiscated, end of, before its too late. But I'm not saying banning guns is the only solution - in this case cracking down on illegal guns would be just as useful.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm sure those 5000+ children killed every year are all killed by burglars and murders, are they? With a gun its so easy to accidentally take someone's life, criminals aren't the only people who kill with guns.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Britain is managing fine. Don't be so paranoid, sure a foreign power MIGHT invade but even if they do, isn't it worthless making guns legal just for that? If an invasion by a foreign power is the only advantage for owning guns, you've got yourself a pretty useless argument.

 

 

 

There has already been numerous other reasons for gun ownership cited all over this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]

 

Are you seriously telling me that violent crime is so ridiculously high in America that a gun is absolutely necessary for self-defence 2 million times a year?

 

It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source)

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from looking at the link you posted you seem to be implying that Britain and Wales should make guns legal to counteract the sudden uprise in violent crime?

 

 

 

If a majority of law abiding citizens owned and carried guns, then you would probably see a decline in crime. Why? Your average chav is not going to try mugging someone that might just shoot them for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, I'm sorry but that would be the worst possible thing to happen to our country, considering whats happening with gun crime already.

 

 

 

The point is that you still have a gun crime problem even after you outlawed them. While the British goverment did effectively eliminate legal guns from the general population and saw the corresponding reduction in crime committed by legal guns, there is no significant crime commited by people using legal guns. There is however no reduction in illegal guns, so the vast majority of criminal's weapon supply remains untouched.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If guns were legal few people would want to buy them except young men in gangs who go around killing each other.

 

 

 

So make it so that people with criminal records cannot legally buy weapons. Gang members will be unable to buy guns anyway, and will continue purchasing them illegally while people that live in bad neighborhoods and feel that they need protection are able to get them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here in Britain the solution to violent crime would not be providing victims with the power to kill their attacker, it is in preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think guns should not necessarily be banned, but heavily restricted

 

 

 

It actually takes very little restriction to keep criminals from buying guns legally to be used in crimes. Even in the US, where to buy just about anything short of a tank all you need is an instant background check, almost all guns used in crime are illegal. Criminals just don't bother with buying legal guns, which means that targeting illegal ones would be quite effective in reducing crime while leaving people's rights intact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

people should be encouraged not to leave them in stupid places where their children will get them, and certainly not to use them until a very last resort.

 

 

 

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.

[jackattack]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[das1330]

 

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?