Gun Control: Should civilians be in possession of guns? [ENDS 09/09/2012]

[Grig]

Gun Control: Should civilians be in possession of guns?
Ends: 09/09/2012

This is an extremely interesting and relevant debate, especially after some recent news stories out of the US, which calls this policy into question.

Basically, there have been numerous shootings such as the recent one outside the Empire State in New York and of course the renowned 'Joker' shooting at the premiere of a Batman movie in Colorado. These are just a few recent cases and the list can be never-ending.

The result from these shootings were countless of innocent deaths by a lone gunman, legally owning a firearm(s). Let's quickly jump to a few argument points.

Those who support possession of fire arms state that it is necessary for protection. In terms of self-defense guns helped people who were being assaulted or robbed. Others view that the ownership of guns should be a civil right, particularly in the USA, which is viewed as a free and democratic country. In other countries such as Finland where conscription into the army if policy, firearms are allowed as they are viewed as a good training mechanism for the military.

As for the other side of the argument, some say that guns lead to more disastrous consequences of civil disputes and violence, where death is involved. It also, as echoed earlier leads to tragic shootings of those who take advantage of possession of firearms. Furthermore, some countries historically banned guns as a fear of violence against the government and governmental jurisdictions such as the police.

Anyway, the debate can go on and on. Let us know you views and back it up with some reasons! You may took about some case studies and examples as well!

[dirrty]

since previous events have been mentioned, i thought i'd be extremly relevant to mention this encase people aren't aware yet:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/



All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers


obviously the above doesn't/shouldn't detract anything from the arguments, but thought its worthy to mention. i have noticed that the other shooting that happened in chicago (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19376491) overnight on thursday/friday morning (19 shot in 7 attacks during the night) was barely reported compared to the NY one (probably because the latter was in a tourist attraction, but also because the former could be gang related, victims aren't speaking, etc.), but it just seems that these are either occurring more often, or the its being reported more/media creating a sense of moral panic.

either way, i do think that civilians shouldn't be in possession of guns. but then i also think the US are far too gone to even strip the population of their weapons as it's far too embedded within its society.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes we ought to be allowed to hold our own guns in a free society, indeed had guns been legal (like the US Constitution and our own say) then incidents such as the 9/11 hijackings wouldn't have occured as well as the Batman cinema shootings - it was because of government restrictions that guns were banned and these incidents became much worse than they would have had to have been had you been allowed to carry guns.

The self defence issue is a big one, and i'm sure people will comment on it later on which i'll respond to - however i'd point out that the reason guns are legal (especially concerning the US) is not so that people can hunt or even really deter criminals, gun rights were put into the constitution to protect the people from the government if it ever got out of hand (a tyranny). The same can be said for Switzerland which has low gun crime yet has very lax gun laws with most of the population owning one - the reason why Switzerland is like that is to protect the people against foreign governments, hence why Switzerland has managed to maintain its independence in Europe despite its tiny size and population.


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." - Adolf Hitler

If my memory serves me correct, Hitler/Stalin/Lenin/Mao/Assad and others all removed gun rights as soon as they assumed power.

...


obviously the above doesn't/shouldn't detract anything from the arguments, but thought its worthy to mention. i have noticed that the other shooting that happened in chicago (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19376491) overnight on thursday/friday morning (19 shot in 7 attacks during the night) was barely reported compared to the NY one (probably because the latter was in a tourist attraction, but also because the former could be gang related, victims aren't speaking, etc.), but it just seems that these are either occurring more often, or the its being reported more/media creating a sense of moral panic.

Indeed, infact I believe the Chicago shootings occured in a city which has some of the most tough gun restrictions in the United States.

After all, what good are gun restrictions when law abiding people are faced with one in a dark side street?

[Catchy]

Could you imagine today's youth running around aimlessly with guns? Enough said.

[deathbot20.v2]

<_< dont youth's already do that?

[GommeInc]

I don't see the point in gun ownership. They come off as only increasing crime problems rather than decreasing them. More guns, more problems. If you need to protect yourself from another crazy gun wielding lunatic, you'll probably be dead before getting the chance to defend yourself from said lunatic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Could you imagine today's youth running around aimlessly with guns? Enough said.

They do already, the only difference being that law abiding sensible people then have no protection from the idiots.


I don't see the point in gun ownership. They come off as only increasing crime problems rather than decreasing them. More guns, more problems. If you need to protect yourself from another crazy gun wielding lunatic, you'll probably be dead before getting the chance to defend yourself from said lunatic.

The facts prove otherwise (stats with gun regulation, the Swiss etc), but as the lunatic as the user above mentioned also - at least with a gun you have a chance. As they say, you don't enter a gun fight wielding a knife.

[GommeInc]

The facts prove otherwise (stats with gun regulation, the Swiss etc), but as the lunatic as the user above mentioned also - at least with a gun you have a chance. As they say, you don't enter a gun fight wielding a knife.
The Swiss are clever, stable people. Years of imbreeding in the US and UK would prove difficult to keep the peace if guns are chucked into the mix here, and the US seem to have problems keeping control of their population currently anyway. At least with a ban it's effectively like having a difficult system in a game - with guns you're upping the dangerous level, without them at least there's less likely a chance of too many people getting or killed, since knife crime is on the way down.

[Kardan]

Simply, no.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Swiss are clever, stable people. Years of imbreeding in the US and UK would prove difficult to keep the peace if guns are chucked into the mix here, and the US seem to have problems keeping control of their population currently anyway. At least with a ban it's effectively like having a difficult system in a game - with guns you're upping the dangerous level, without them at least there's less likely a chance of too many people getting or killed, since knife crime is on the way down.


If you really believe knife crime and crime in general is on the way down like the government claims then what else can I say.

And if the United States and United Kingdom are full of nutters (most of them are petty criminals as opposed to nutters, so i'd certainly agree we have more petty criminals than Switzerland) then that simply makes the case for gun ownership stronger as a method to deter would-be criminals. The criminals will always commit crime and they'll always get hold of guns and weapons in general - so the question remaining is, do the law abiding majority deserve the right to defend themselves as hinted at in our own constitution?

I say yes, especially for those living in truly dreadful estates that we, being middle class, cannot imagine what life is like there every night and every day.


Simply, no.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

Not true, look at the Swiss example along with US cities/states which have stronger gun regulations compared with those that do not.

And besides, what right do you have to force your views upon me for my own good? if I want a gun for my own protection and protection of my property, why is that your business or the business of the state anymore than what you get up to inside your bedroom is my business or of the state?

[Kardan]

If you really believe knife crime and crime in general is on the way down like the government claims then what else can I say.

And if the United States and United Kingdom are full of nutters (most of them are petty criminals as opposed to nutters, so i'd certainly agree we have more petty criminals than Switzerland) then that simply makes the case for gun ownership stronger as a method to deter would-be criminals. The criminals will always commit crime and they'll always get hold of guns and weapons in general - so the question remaining is, do the law abiding majority deserve the right to defend themselves as hinted at in our own constitution?

I say yes, especially for those living in truly dreadful estates that we, being middle class, cannot imagine what life is like there every night and every day.



Not true, look at the Swiss example along with US cities/states which have stronger gun regulations compared with those that do not.

And besides, what right do you have to force your views upon me for my own good? if I want a gun for my own protection and protection of my property, why is that your business or the business of the state anymore than what you get up to inside your bedroom is my business or of the state?

Whatever you get up to inside your house is obviously up to you, but you should still follow the law. And it's true that the Swiss have more gun ownership per person than the US and their gun crime is lower than the US, but it's still significantly higher than our own. If you make a graph of gun ownership vs gun crime with population taken into account, Switzerland is the only anomaly, and even if you still include it, there's a positive correlation.

US gun deaths per person is 40 times higher than the UK's. It's something like 0.073 deaths per 100,000 people in the UK, compared to 0.3 deaths per 100,000 people in the US.

Of course, if you want a gun to defend yourself, then perhaps you should just move to a country that allows it, I don't see the UK changing their views any time soon...

[santa-my-nana]

I believe that no civilised country (not 3rd world) should be allowed to carry guns. it's disgracefull, yeah self defence but dont you thibk theres other things than guns and knives such as martial arts. It's an accident waiting to happen, them accidents do happen

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whatever you get up to inside your house is obviously up to you, but you should still follow the law.

Since when did something being law make it just?


And it's true that the Swiss have more gun ownership per person than the US and their gun crime is lower than the US, but it's still significantly higher than our own. If you make a graph of gun ownership vs gun crime with population taken into account, Switzerland is the only anomaly, and even if you still include it, there's a positive correlation.

US gun deaths per person is 40 times higher than the UK's. It's something like 0.073 deaths per 100,000 people in the UK, compared to 0.3 deaths per 100,000 people in the US.

Incorrect, even in US cities it can be seen with high gun controls (Chicago) vs barely any controls.


6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

..thus the reason why gun crime is so high is an unintended consquence of gun controls. With gun controls, you may have 10 would-be criminals who will arm themselves, break into a house and out of them 10 incidents it may result in 4 of them ending in death. Without gun controls, of the 10 would be criminals, 6 may be instantly put off even considering breaking into private property and of those 4 incidents that take place, 2 may end in death (but with a twist, the deaths resulting from those incidents would include the criminals as opposed to the innocent occupiers of the property).

Gun control logic is always simple and thus is easily disproven with a little thought (unintended consquences). The chimpish thought of 'ban things which are bad' has always failed throughout history and leads to other problems as well as making the original problem even worse - think of price controls v the free market, public spending vs real demand, the minimum wage v employment stats and so on.


Of course, if you want a gun to defend yourself, then perhaps you should just move to a country that allows it, I don't see the UK changing their views any time soon...

Or I could stay here and argue for more freedoms and the right to self defence?


I believe that no civilised country (not 3rd world) should be allowed to carry guns. it's disgracefull, yeah self defence but dont you thibk theres other things than guns and knives such as martial arts. It's an accident waiting to happen, them accidents do happen

It is true that accidents will happen, of course you are correct. Which is exactly why we deserve, as adults, the right to be able to make our own choices and take our own risks - just as you take a risk everytime you may go skiiing, cross the road, take drugs, go on a booze cruise and so on.

[santa-my-nana]

Yes but thats different, your pottentially injuring someone else, yeah fine if your injuring yourself but when your putting others in danger thats wrong. Totally wrong

Like it said im in the Uk, I wont be changing my views

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes but thats different, your pottentially injuring someone else, yeah fine if your injuring yourself but when your putting others in danger thats wrong. Totally wrong

Like it said im in the Uk, I wont be changing my views

In regards to injuring others then, how about imposing tough restrictions on who you can have sex with then and how you can have sex? would you agree to that? because remember, sexual activity can harm others in the spread of diseases. I mean we could even include drink in this, as alcohol fuelled brawls and incidents in inner city areas on a friday and saturday night can affect more than just yourself.

[Kardan]

Since when did something being law make it just?



Incorrect, even in US cities it can be seen with high gun controls (Chicago) vs barely any controls.



http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

..thus the reason why gun crime is so high is an unintended consquence of gun controls. With gun controls, you may have 10 would-be criminals who will arm themselves, break into a house and out of them 10 incidents it may result in 4 of them ending in death.

Without gun controls, of the 10 would be criminals, 6 may be instantly put off even considering breaking into private property and of those 4 incidents that take place, 2 may end in death (but with a twist, the deaths resulting from those incidents would include the criminals as opposed to the innocent occupiers of the property).

Gun control logic is always simple and thus is easily disproven with a little thought (unintended consquences).



Or I could stay here and argue for more freedoms and the right to self defence?



It is true that accidents will happen, of course you are correct. Which is exactly why we deserve, as adults, the right to be able to make our own choices and take our own risks - just as you take a risk everytime you may go skiiing, cross the road, take drugs, go on a booze cruise and so on.

As a whole, the US has 40 times more gun deaths than the UK per person. Yes there will be some cities in the US that break the trend, just like they'll be some cities in the UK where gun crime is way more common than others (London, obviously).

As I've said, Switzerland does break the trend, but it's still worse than the UK.

I'd feel a lot safer not having a gun to protect myself than to know that every person in the street has one, especially with the youth of today.

I've made all the points I want in this debate really, I know you'll have many facts to disprove anything else I say :P

[santa-my-nana]

Well drink driving is already banned,

Regarding the sex issue they have both consented to do that, whereas the person whos getting injured by a gun didnt consent to getting injured. No they may not have known about adisease possibly but they both consented to it, Guns = bad.

Some Facts
Americans own 200 million firearms
and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun
a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns
a study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 39 percent of kids knew where their parent's guns were stored, while 22 percent said they had handled the weapons despite adult's warnings to stay away. What's more, age was not a factor in whether children had played with the guns -- 5-year-olds were just as likely to report doing so as


Some "accidents that have happened" all due to guns

A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father's gun -- which he found lying on the floor.

The 10-year-old son of a New York City police officer died after shooting himself in the face with his father's loaded revolver. The boy found the weapon on a shelf in the basement while looking for a ball his mom had hidden.

A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent's couch while playing.

...

[GommeInc]

I say yes, especially for those living in truly dreadful estates that we, being middle class, cannot imagine what life is like there every night and every day.
Isn't that just suggesting we let them shoot each other out, like a contained self-destructing problem? Arming those who live in these estates would probably be robbed of their guns and weaponry and have them used against them. Afterall, lots of robberies could hypothetically result in a person being attacked by their own bread knives.

[Catchy]

Undertaker why do you keep banging on about self defence? Would you not say a gun is just a LITTLE extreme? Buy a can of pepper spray for god sake...

[Charz777]

Definitely not. Guns only cause gun crime. Guns along with any other weapons only make people think they need one to protect themselves from others. If people don't have the weapons in the first place then surely the problem is gone. But on the other hand it's a lot easier for people to get hold of other weapons like knives, so the problem doesn't really go away. I still say no to people being allowed guns though.

[Empired]

Guns cause nothing but death. If you get up and shoot someone, you must (however subconsciously) have made up your mind to kill them. Even if it's because there's someone in your house pointing a gun at you, you've made the choice to try and shoot them dead. Nobody (obviously minus very young children) picks up a gun and shoots at someone by accident or without knowing what they're doing. It just doesn't happen.

And about all this "self defense" talk, nobody should have the right to take somebody's life away even if they're about to die themselves. It makes them just as bad as the original attacker.
Anyway, if I was held at gunpoint by somebody but I shot them dead, I could never live with myself afterwards. It would just lead to a lifetime of counselling sessions, depression and all sorts of problems that would just make me suffer. I think I would rather be dead than have to live with taking someone else's life, even though I may not think that at the time.

I don't think people should be allowed to be in possession of a gun either. Shooting at somebody because they're shooting at you does not make the problem go away, it basically just means you've added yourself to the problem. Congratulations.
There's no point in making guns illegal in homes though. It will not work unless all guns have to stop being manufactured so eventually there will be none left. This will never happen.

There's a short story called Give Peas a Chance where basically a boy won't each his fruit & vegetables until every country has given up their weapons and put them out of reach. He makes world news and his "plan" works and nobody has any weapons anymore until one day one country starts to make more. And then every other country does the same so we were back where we started.
So if we ever got to the fantastic situation where nobody owned any guns anywhere in the world (never going to happen), one country would end up making more so they could conquer the rest of the world or something similar so everywhere else makes weapons too. It's a never ending cycle.

[FiftyCal]

Yes of course Civilians should be armed with guns. Disarming people only effects law abiding citizens, criminals don't follow the law. The 2nd amendment in the constitution states The right to bear arms, and with no weapons here there goes our last line of defense against tyranny, that's what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, not go to hunting or just target shooting, but simpily to protect yourself from corrupted government. There is a lot of armed robberies in the USA and i think that people who are Anti-Gun should look at good civilians that do no harm with guns and not just look at the bad people with guns. Matter fact im going to start carrying around my Chinese SKS Rifle around in public probably this week to promote the second amendment.

[Corina35]

I dont think that civillians should have guns, it would just mean that there is more chance for violence. They would then be able to use them if they get attacked but there are other things use can use as weapons around the house that are not guns. However people could just invest in extra security for doors and keep windows shut if they are worried about people getting in.

[dbgtz]

..thus the reason why gun crime is so high is an unintended consquence of gun controls. With gun controls, you may have 10 would-be criminals who will arm themselves, break into a house and out of them 10 incidents it may result in 4 of them ending in death. Without gun controls, of the 10 would be criminals, 6 may be instantly put off even considering breaking into private property and of those 4 incidents that take place, 2 may end in death (but with a twist, the deaths resulting from those incidents would include the criminals as opposed to the innocent occupiers of the property).


You've just pulled those figures out of your arse to help your own argument. Have you ever asked yourself what happens when it is abused? What would have happened if the rioters last year had guns? Or this more recent threat of an armed revolution. I think you have to look at what is more likely, government tyranny or a bunch of morons pointing and shooting guns everywhere.


Yes of course Civilians should be armed with guns. Disarming people only effects law abiding citizens, criminals don't follow the law. The 2nd amendment in the constitution states The right to bear arms, and with no weapons here there goes our last line of defense against tyranny, that's what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, not go to hunting or just target shooting, but simpily to protect yourself from corrupted government. There is a lot of armed robberies in the USA and i think that people who are Anti-Gun should look at good civilians that do no harm with guns and not just look at the bad people with guns. Matter fact im going to start carrying around my Chinese SKS Rifle around in public probably this week to promote the second amendment.

Just to turn Undertakers own argument against him, since when did something being law make it just?

I have more points but I have dinner now so I shall expand later.

[DryRash]

It's hard because there are so many positives and negatives here's mine.

Positive
It can be good in ways as if people where aloud to carry fire arms and things like that, Maybe we wouldn't have many issues where the good people get shot like it even happens with Police (UK) One policemen was follow this man as he had to go to jail so as he was following him down an alley he knew he cornered him, So he called for back up and as he called for back up he went in the alley and the man turned around and shot him, His collogues came to find him dead. There are many incidents like that, So I suppose it would be good if a citizen could even carry a fire arm it can save them in so many way!

Negatives
It can be bad, Because people can abuse it, Like one person may buy one for protection for his family but then his wife divorces him and he goes mad and shoots her or maybe others around he are looking, Plus if citizens decide cause they have a gun they can be the hero like they go and shoot the bad guy but the good guy ends up getting shot it would just cause chaos and too much blood spilt.

What do I think?
I can't really decide because it's a 50/50 situation but im glad you now know my thoughts and things it will be good to see when this debate ends.

[FiftyCal]

Well drink driving is already banned,

Regarding the sex issue they have both consented to do that, whereas the person whos getting injured by a gun didnt consent to getting injured. No they may not have known about adisease possibly but they both consented to it, Guns = bad.

Some Facts
Americans own 200 million firearms
and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun
a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns
a study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 39 percent of kids knew where their parent's guns were stored, while 22 percent said they had handled the weapons despite adult's warnings to stay away. What's more, age was not a factor in whether children had played with the guns -- 5-year-olds were just as likely to report doing so as


Some "accidents that have happened" all due to guns

A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father's gun -- which he found lying on the floor.

The 10-year-old son of a New York City police officer died after shooting himself in the face with his father's loaded revolver. The boy found the weapon on a shelf in the basement while looking for a ball his mom had hidden.

A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent's couch while playing.

...
The parents are the one to blame for not putting trigger locks on them and keeping them in a gun safe away from children.
People think guns should be under very hard control because of these "accidents" but a lot of accidents where kids end up shooting themselves with guns is because they are not locked away and are in a kids reach.

If i have kids i'd buy a gun safe so my guns don't get stolen in case of a break in and so my kids don't play with them.

[Kardan]

The parents are the one to blame for not putting trigger locks on them and keeping them in a gun safe away from children.
People think guns should be under very hard control because of these "accidents" but a lot of accidents where kids end up shooting themselves with guns is because they are not locked away and are in a kids reach.

If i have kids i'd buy a gun safe so my guns don't get stolen in case of a break in and so my kids don't play with them.

Very true in the case of younger kids, but when young teenagers are involved, it's different. 13 or 14 year olds can easily search the house for example, so it'd be easier in the UK to not have guns at all.

[santa-my-nana]

The parents are the one to blame for not putting trigger locks on them and keeping them in a gun safe away from children.
People think guns should be under very hard control because of these "accidents" but a lot of accidents where kids end up shooting themselves with guns is because they are not locked away and are in a kids reach.

If i have kids i'd buy a gun safe so my guns don't get stolen in case of a break in and so my kids don't play with them.

But dont you think buying a gun when you have children is immoral because your basically teaching your kids that guns are ok, violence is ok, Go join a gang and kill people.

[FiftyCal]

But dont you think buying a gun when you have children is immoral because your basically teaching your kids that guns are ok, violence is ok, Go join a gang and kill people.
It's not really immortal if you raise them the right away and teach them to be a respectable person when they grow up. Guns are not a bad thing, there's just bad people handling guns out there thinking they are bigger than anyone else, but there is also good people out there with guns. You're taking things the wrong way, there's more things to do with guns than just going on a killing spree.

[santa-my-nana]

It's not really immortal if you raise them the right away and teach them to be a respectable person when they grow up. Guns are not a bad thing, there's just bad people handling guns out there thinking they are bigger than anyone else, but there is also good people out there with guns. You're taking things the wrong way, there's more things to do with guns than just going on a killing spree.

Yes but theres always that risk, its safer to not have a gun than to have one, Even if you handle it correctly you can still get accidents, You can try to teach someone to be respectfull but generally it doesnt work that way, the more you push someone, the more they dissabey (cant spell it). It is immoral and absolutely wrong,

[Invent]

Absolutely not.

edited by Oleh (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointless comments

[FiftyCal]

Yes but theres always that risk, its safer to not have a gun than to have one, Even if you handle it correctly you can still get accidents, You can try to teach someone to be respectfull but generally it doesnt work that way, the more you push someone, the more they dissabey (cant spell it). It is immoral and absolutely wrong, The only way people can get in these "accidents" is because of dumb people that don't know muzzle control. There is dumb people that misuse guns but that doesn't mean they should take them away from good law abiding citizens. If people are so concerned with guns, why don't they just ban cars as well? It's just as easy to hop in a car and do a whole massacre.

[santa-my-nana]

The only way people can get in these "accidents" is because of dumb people that don't know muzzle control. There is dumb people that misuse guns but that doesn't mean they should take them away from good law abiding citizens. If people are so concerned with guns, why don't they just ban cars as well? It's just as easy to hop in a car and do a whole massacre.

Yes but the thing about cars there not made to KILL people, a car is used to get around in , though accidents can happen its not like the cars are trying to hurt people whereas guns are. If your a good law abiding citizen why do you need a gun. you may get it to be protect your self but most times it doesnt, Accidents dont just happen from missuse or them not knowing how to work it, Accidents happen with people who use the gun all the time, They may forget to do something one time.

Again why do you need a gun, what are you going to use it for except killing people weather your claiming its self defence or not it's still murder or attempted murder, stuff like martial arts is much more effective,

What gives you the right to kill someone with your gun, You dont have the right in your hands to take someones life or keep it, in america thats up to the law. In our country we dont believe in killing whatever crime they have commited, an eye for an eye is not right, say someone broke into your house, you just shoot them, Is that right? NO, though i dont believe much in god, he created all the life, and only he has the right to take it.

You are just as bad as a murderer or someone taking drugs or someone commiting any crime by holding a gun.

[peteyt]

Ban them - Make it hard for people to get hold of them. I'm not going to say gun's are evil because it's the people, but at least if we took away some of their weapons we could make it harder for them to cause issues.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well drink driving is already banned,

Regarding the sex issue they have both consented to do that, whereas the person whos getting injured by a gun didnt consent to getting injured. No they may not have known about adisease possibly but they both consented to it, Guns = bad.

And a thief has consented to risk his own life when he breaks into a property and potentially threatens the homeowners. That is a voluntary contract he enters into when he knowingly takes that risk, and it is the same with certain sexual acts or relationships.


Some Facts
Americans own 200 million firearms
and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun
a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns
a study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 39 percent of kids knew where their parent's guns were stored, while 22 percent said they had handled the weapons despite adult's warnings to stay away. What's more, age was not a factor in whether children had played with the guns -- 5-year-olds were just as likely to report doing so as

So? a great deal of children know where knives, car keys and other objects are stored - does this mean we have children sometimes hurting themselves with knives, driving cars and turning on power tools in the garage or garden shed? yes it does. The same applies to guns, there will always be a risk.

And besides, isn't the risk to be determined by the parents as opposed to you? I don't recall 100% of all British parents appointing you to make decisions on behalf of them concerning safety precautions in their own homes.


Some "accidents that have happened" all due to guns

A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father's gun -- which he found lying on the floor.

The 10-year-old son of a New York City police officer died after shooting himself in the face with his father's loaded revolver. The boy found the weapon on a shelf in the basement while looking for a ball his mom had hidden.

A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent's couch while playing.

...

This form of debate is the lowest form of logical argument anybody can provide - I could as easily and lazily pull out a list of people killed by falling trees or car crashes. The fact you simply stated 'GUNZ=BAD' earlier just goes to show it in clear daylight how debased your side of the debate is, relying on emotional argument as opposed to logical argument.

If you're going to argue from a ridiculous logical standpoint, at least follow it through and be consistent.


Isn't that just suggesting we let them shoot each other out, like a contained self-destructing problem? Arming those who live in these estates would probably be robbed of their guns and weaponry and have them used against them. Afterall, lots of robberies could hypothetically result in a person being attacked by their own bread knives.

No, i'm suggesting that if somebody breaks into private property that the home owner has the right to self defence and that the thief/person breaking in has knowingly risked his or her life in doing so.


Arming those who live in these estates would probably be robbed of their guns and weaponry and have them used against them.

It would be made much harder to rob people of their property when they are armed with a gun in the first place.


Undertaker why do you keep banging on about self defence? Would you not say a gun is just a LITTLE extreme? Buy a can of pepper spray for god sake...

Because you don't bring a can of pepper spray or a knife to a gun fight and expect to walk away alive.


Definitely not. Guns only cause gun crime. Guns along with any other weapons only make people think they need one to protect themselves from others. If people don't have the weapons in the first place then surely the problem is gone. But on the other hand it's a lot easier for people to get hold of other weapons like knives, so the problem doesn't really go away. I still say no to people being allowed guns though.

If guns 'cause crime' as you claim (which is impossible anyway, as guns are incapable of thinking for themselves), then why do areas with higher gun controls in US cities have such high gun crime compared with more lax areas in the United States? .. added to that, why does Switzerland, which has lax gun controls, also have low levels of crime?


And about all this "self defense" talk, nobody should have the right to take somebody's life away even if they're about to die themselves. It makes them just as bad as the original attacker.

That is such an incredible and ridiculous statement to make that i've just shook my head in stunned disbelief.


You've just pulled those figures out of your arse to help your own argument. Have you ever asked yourself what happens when it is abused? What would have happened if the rioters last year had guns? Or this more recent threat of an armed revolution. I think you have to look at what is more likely, government tyranny or a bunch of morons pointing and shooting guns everywhere.

Have you considered that had guns been legal, that many wouldn't have tried to break into private property as they wouldn't be prepared to take the risk? indeed, as most during the riots last summer were petty criminals (people who only partake in crime when they feel the risk of being caught is very low) I can say that I do not believe those riots would have occurred or spread in such a manner like they did had guns been legal.

As for the figures, its well established with Switzerland being the prime example.


I think you have to look at what is more likely, government tyranny

Quite and highly likely, indeed just before our generation was born half of the European continent (many places where we go on holiday today) was under a brutal dictatorship/s.

The Syrian example of a government that has tight gun controls is one you can see today, with groups seeking to undermine the regime literally begging for gun supplies because their government purposely clamped down on gun rights to prevent an uprising ever taking place.


Just to turn Undertakers own argument against him, since when did something being law make it just?

I am not arguing for law, I am arguing against law.

[Catchy]

And a thief has consented to risk his own life when he breaks into a property and potentially threatens the homeowners. That is a voluntary contract he enters into when he knowingly takes that risk, and it is the same with certain sexual acts or relationships.



So? a great deal of children know where knives, car keys and other objects are stored - does this mean we have children sometimes hurting themselves with knives, driving cars and turning on power tools in the garage or garden shed? yes it does. The same applies to guns, there will always be a risk.

And besides, isn't the risk to be determined by the parents as opposed to you? I don't recall 100% of all British parents appointing you to make decisions on behalf of them concerning safety precautions in their own homes.



This form of debate is the lowest form of logical argument anybody can provide - I could as easily and lazily pull out a list of people killed by falling trees or car crashes. The fact you simply stated 'GUNZ=BAD' earlier just goes to show it in clear daylight how debased your side of the debate is, relying on emotional argument as opposed to logical argument.

If you're going to argue from a ridiculous logical standpoint, at least follow it through and be consistent.



No, i'm suggesting that if somebody breaks into private property that the home owner has the right to self defence and that the thief/person breaking in has knowingly risked his or her life in doing so.



It would be made much harder to rob people of their property when they are armed with a gun in the first place.



Because you don't bring a can of pepper spray or a knife to a gun fight and expect to walk away alive.



If guns 'cause crime' as you claim, then why do areas with higher gun controls in US cities have such high gun crime compared with more lax areas in the United States? .. added to that, why does Switzerland, which has lax gun controls, also have low levels of crime?



That is such an incredible and ridiculous statement to make that i've just shook my head in stunned disbelief.



Have you considered that had guns been legal, that many wouldn't have tried to break into private property as they wouldn't be prepared to take the risk? indeed, as most during the riots last summer were petty criminals (people who only partake in crime when they feel the risk of being caught is very low) I can say that I do not believe those riots would have occurred or spread in such a manner like they did had guns been legal.

As for the figures, its well established with Switzerland being the prime example.



Quite and highly likely, indeed just before our generation was born half of the European continent (many places where we go on holiday today) was under a brutal dictatorship/s.

The Syrian example of a government that has tight gun controls is one you can see today, with groups seeking to undermine the regime literally begging for gun supplies because their government purposely clamped down on gun rights to prevent an uprising ever taking place.



I am not arguing for law, I am arguing against law.

Gun fight? Can't say I've ever come across one if I'm honest and I'm sure the majority haven't either... Not all of us are part of vicious gangs.

[Empired]

That is such an incredible and ridiculous statement to make that i've just shook my head in stunned disbelief.

There are better ways to stop someone from murdering you than murdering them instead!!! Sometimes it's easier to just kick out anyway (maybe not that simple though!!!!)

I have shaken my head at all of your arguments, if I'm honest. You just seem to be desperate for violence. I'm sure that's not the case, but that's how you're putting it across to me :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gun fight? Can't say I've ever come across one if I'm honest and I'm sure the majority haven't either... Not all of us are part of vicious gangs.

Who claimed that we'd all be involved in gun fights? because I certainly did not.


There are better ways to stop someone from murdering you than murdering them instead!!! Sometimes it's easier to just kick out anyway (maybe not that simple though!!!!)

Not when they are usually aged in their 20's (being fit) and have a gun or a knife ... and especially if you yourself are aged 60 and above, weaponless and defenceless.


I have shaken my head at all of your arguments, if I'm honest. You just seem to be desperate for violence. I'm sure that's not the case, but that's how you're putting it across to me :P

If I were desperate for violence to occur, then surely I would take the opposing side and say that actually I think the law abiding people of this country shouldn't be protected against gun and knife wielding thugs who break into their property - a position you and many others are taking. My main aim is to prevent crime by allowing people to have their own deterrents, the second aim is to protect innocent people when that deterrent is sometimes broken.

[Catchy]

Who claimed that we'd all be involved in gun fights? because I certainly did not.



Not when they are usually aged in their 20's (being fit) and have a gun or a knife ... and especially if you yourself are aged 60 and above, weaponless and defenceless.



If I were desperate for violence to occur, then surely I would take the opposing side and say that actually I think the law abiding people of this country shouldn't be protected against gun and knife wielding thugs who break into their property - a position you and many others are taking. My main aim is to prevent crime by allowing people to have their own deterrents, the second aim is to protect innocent people when that deterrent is sometimes broken.

yh you did... you said it wouldnt protect u from a gunfight but y would u be in one in the bloody first place?

[-:Undertaker:-]

yh you did... you said it wouldnt protect u from a gunfight but y would u be in one in the bloody first place?

I personally? I never said that I would, for certain, ever be in one. I may not, but then again I may be.

Another straw man argument blasted apart, anymore?

[Catchy]

I personally? I never said that I would, for certain, ever be in one. I may not, but then again I may be.

Another straw man argument blasted apart, anymore?

Okay maybe not you personally, for others who may be involved in gun crime? Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, surely legalizing guns will just promote them? Funny thing is you're probably not even for legalizing guns, you're most probably just trying to be the only one to argue the silly view.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay maybe not you personally, for others who may be involved in gun crime?

So you are you saying to me that nobody in this country will be threatened with a gun in the present or near future?


Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, surely legalizing guns will just promote them?

Not at all, had you read the argument (as opposed to skim reading it which I have the feeling that you have) then you will have seen that this is a fallacy - Switzerland and Norway are two key example of states which have low crime rates and yet have very lax gun controls. The same applies for US cities with high gun controls v lax gun controls.


Funny thing is you're probably not even for legalizing guns, you're most probably just trying to be the only one to argue the silly view.

If I were arguing the silly view then i'd be making straw man arguments and not bothering to read the thread properly, much like yourself.

[Catchy]

Okay undertaker ur right as always... i know ur not gonna back down so no point.

[FlyingJesus]

I am indifferent to people having guns on their own property, as that can genuinely be claimed a deterrent or defensive move, but I can't defend the "need" that anyone might have to carry one out in public places. Guns have one function and one function only, and that is to maim or kill things. I fully understand that whatever the law may state some people will have them anyway (as does happen even in the UK) but lawbreakers will be lawbreakers regardless, and living in a country that has one of the lowest firearm homicide percentages I don't see any need to bring in extra weapons just to fuel this needless paranoia that we're going to get shot every time we go out at night

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay undertaker ur right as always... i know ur not gonna back down so no point.

Why thank you.


I am indifferent to people having guns on their own property, as that can genuinely be claimed a deterrent or defensive move, but I can't defend the "need" that anyone might have to carry one out in public places. Guns have one function and one function only, and that is to maim or kill things. I fully understand that whatever the law may state some people will have them anyway (as does happen even in the UK) but lawbreakers will be lawbreakers regardless, and living in a country that has one of the lowest firearm homicide percentages I don't see any need to bring in extra weapons just to fuel this needless paranoia that we're going to get shot every time we go out at night

Indeed, if the anti-gun lobby took this stance (respecting private property and personal liberty) then there'd be no need for this debate at all, other than what all of our personal preferences were.

[nvrspk4]

Indeed, if the anti-gun lobby took this stance (respecting private property and personal liberty) then there'd be no need for this debate at all, other than what all of our personal preferences were.

Do you really think that a law that said "you can own guns on your land as long as you don't take them off your land" would be supported by the pro-gun lobby?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you really think that a law that said "you can own guns on your land as long as you don't take them off your land" would be supported by the pro-gun lobby?

It depends, but i'm talking more in regards to the United Kingdom where we have a long way to go in reinstating gun rights - the proposal FlyingJesus makes would be a comfortable compromise between both sides of the debate in a country which has virtually no gun rights left anymore. I personally would allow them in public places preferabley being concealed, as events such as the Batman cinema shooting, University campus shootings and 9/11 showed - had even one member of the public of been armed, then a lot of lives could have been saved.

I simply applaud FlyingJesus for at least respecting property rights and showing some form of consistency in his arguments (he often rightly argues for less state control in many areas) even if he's not that keen on guns.

[GommeInc]

No, i'm suggesting that if somebody breaks into private property that the home owner has the right to self defence and that the thief/person breaking in has knowingly risked his or her life in doing so.

It would be made much harder to rob people of their property when they are armed with a gun in the first place.
Such rights already exist :P The recent case in Devon is a prime example. The couple were bailed as they have the right to protect their property and the group who broke in knew the risks and are likely to be found guilty because of this.

Not everyone would want a gun to protect themselves, some feel having a weapon in the house would make the event more dangerous. Afterall, quite a few people are attacked by their own kitchen knives in their own houses.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Such rights already exist :P The recent case in Devon is a prime example. The couple were bailed as they have the right to protect their property and the group who broke in knew the risks and are likely to be found guilty because of this.

I would guess that its because it was a rural property(?), but yes that is good news and there was a story that broke yesterday about a 93-year old US veteran who shot a thief dead - I salute people who portect themselves, family and property in such a way. My point is, I want to extend these rights to people who live in the cities, especially those living in dreadful neighbourhoods.


Not everyone would want a gun to protect themselves, some feel having a weapon in the house would make the event more dangerous. Afterall, quite a few people are attacked by their own kitchen knives in their own houses.

Indeed, all i'm arguing for is the liberty of people to make that choice themselves.

In the same way that I argue for the state to withdraw from marriage which would de facto legalise gay 'marriage', despite the fact I disagree with the concept. The same for the likes of drug legalisation, prostitution and so on.

[nvrspk4]

It depends, but i'm talking more in regards to the United Kingdom where we have a long way to go in reinstating gun rights - the proposal FlyingJesus makes would be a comfortable compromise between both sides of the debate in a country which has virtually no gun rights left anymore. I personally would allow them in public places preferabley being concealed, as events such as the Batman cinema shooting, University campus shootings and 9/11 showed - had even one member of the public of been armed, then a lot of lives could have been saved.

I simply applaud FlyingJesus for at least respecting property rights and showing some form of consistency in his arguments (he often rightly argues for less state control in many areas) even if he's not that keen on guns.

Interesting how different the perspective is. I also disagree with the "one member of the public" argument. I think the Empire State shootings show how this wouldn't solve much. First of all, you assume that every member of the public has enough restraint only to use it in those situations (ok, I hear the individual liberty arguments coming and that's one we could go back and forth for a while). The more compelling argument for me is that the New York City police, part of the counter-terrorism unit, some of the best trained police officers in the country, shot 7 other people trying return fire from a lone gunman. This is from trained officers. I think in many cases more people might be killed if a civilian was armed.