Stop and think - and you will realise that banning guns is a waste of time

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Stop and think - and you will realise that banning guns is a waste of time


http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef017c34e5a86a970b-320wi


Ask yourself this. Even if you had a house full of guns and ammunition, would you then murder a close relative, shoot your way into a nearby primary school and massacre as many children as you could? Of course you wouldn’t.

You would have to be mad to do such a thing, and mad in a rather special way. And if you were mad in that way, and had no gun, you might use other weapons. There are recent instances in various parts of the world of what appear to be attempted mass murder by car, or by knife.

Take what happened just over a week ago in Chenpeng village school, Henan province, in China. Min Yongjun stabbed an elderly woman before hurting 22 children (many very badly) with a kitchen knife.

So shall we ban kitchen knives? Or cars? Actually, most mass attacks in China – which like almost all despotisms has very tight gun laws – are done with either knives or explosives.

The important thing is that these attacks still happen even with gun laws. What I am asking you to do here is to think. Don’t be herded into the standard liberal opinion, that the Sandy Hook School tragedy is the fault of America’s allegedly crazy gun laws.

Actually, Connecticut’s gun laws are a good deal tighter than Britain’s were before 1920. British gun law before then was so relaxed it made Texas look effeminate. Did the streets of Edwardian London echo to gunfire? Were school massacres common? No.

Were guns restricted here because of crime? No, they were restricted because the panicky British government thought there might be a revolution.

In Switzerland, to this day, most homes contain powerful military weapons and ammunition.

But gun crime is extremely rare there (unless you count suicide). Yet these massacres are a feature of modern life. They happen in countries such as Britain and Germany that already have severe gun laws.

Guns have been around for centuries, and high-capacity magazines have been around for decades. Guns in general are more controlled than ever. So a thinking person must look somewhere else for an explanation.

While the BBC and the papers have raged about guns, nobody has looked at the people who did the murders. There has been no great pressure to find out about Adam Lanza. Most reports make it plain that he was in some way mentally abnormal. Some suggest he may have been on one of the many powerful and poorly tested ‘medications’ that modern medicine casually inflicts on bored children who fidget in class, or on people who are just unhappy in various ways. There is, as yet, no clear answer. There may never be, as the authorities and the media just aren’t interested enough.

One of the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris, was on such medication (as we know thanks to a Freedom of Information inquiry), and the other, Dylan Klebold, may have been taking mind-altering pills at some point before he acted, though his medical records are sealed – inexplicably, given the importance of the information. In many other similar massacres, pills are involved – Patrick Purdy, culprit of the 1989 Cleveland school shooting, and Jeff Weise, culprit of the 2005 Red Lake High School shootings, had been taking ‘antidepressants’.

So had Michael McDermott, culprit of the 2000 Wakefield massacre in Massachusetts. So had Kip Kinkel, responsible for a 1998 murder spree in Oregon. So had John Hinckley, who tried to murder President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Then there are the illegal drugs that have been effectively decriminalised in much of the USA and Britain, especially supposedly ‘peaceful’ cannabis, now increasingly correlated with severe mental illness. ‘Medical Marijuana’, in effect the lawful sale of dope on medical pretexts, became legal in Connecticut earlier this year. Funny that, as we panic about guns we get laxer about mind-altering drugs.

Jared Lee Loughner, who murdered six people in Tucson, Arizona, had at one time been a heavy cannabis user. And then of course there’s our old friend ‘care in the community’, under which people with quite severe problems are pushed out on to the streets so that mental hospitals can be closed and sold, and their staff made redundant.

There you have it. You, and MPs, and the media, can choose to think seriously about this subject. Or we can run with the flock bleating for tougher gun laws – and then wonder why it is that the massacres keep happening anyway.

I had been waiting for Hitchens to comment on this as I knew what he'd touch upon (the drugs). So to all those wanting to look for something to ban, maybe, given the record, you ought to look elsewhere other than guns. A bit of thinking wouldn't go amiss.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/67bd53477f9153bc2b841e894d2e834c/tumblr_mf3649e8EO1qz72ywo1_500.jpg

[Chippiewill]

Take what happened just over a week ago in Chenpeng village school, Henan province, in China. Min Yongjun stabbed an elderly woman before hurting 22 children (many very badly) with a kitchen knife.

So shall we ban kitchen knives? Or cars? Actually, most mass attacks in China – which like almost all despotisms has very tight gun laws – are done with either knives or explosives.

Well, you could hurt them a whole lot more if you used a gun.

[Kardan]

Ask yourself this. Even if you had a house full of guns and ammunition, would you then murder a close relative, shoot your way into a nearby primary school and massacre as many children as you could? Of course you wouldn’t.

You would have to be mad to do such a thing

I stopped reading there to be honest. 'Of course you wouldn't is absolutely ridiculous, and then 'You would have to be mad to do such a thing...', well, yes, most people that do murder many people usually are mad.

This one dude's point of view won't change my views on it. Using the argument 'But knives kill more people, so lets ban them' is stupid, and I know Undertake, you use it quite often, because you always like to bring in banning homosexuality and sex in general. We're talking about things that are used to mainly murder people and have no other use in society today. Kitchen knives for example, 99.999...% of the time, they are used in the kitchen as expected. Same for cars, not many people go on a murderous rampage compared to the amount that use them everyday for transport. Guns however, well, what other uses are there except for injuring/killing.

This is quite an old debate really. Many more people are anti-guns, but there will be a few that support it, and so be it :)

[Chippiewill]

Guns however, well, what other uses are there except for injuring/killing.

sport. That is of course not an argument for fully automatic or concealable weapons, which is precisely what is restricted in the UK.

[Kardan]

sport. That is of course not an argument for fully automatic or concealable weapons, which is precisely what is restricted in the UK.

Then allow guns for regulated sport, just like cars are allowed for driving :) I don't think people would be too happy with free use on guns when you have stupid teenagers that have played COD all there lives deciding to snipe people from their council flat.

[Chippiewill]

Then allow guns for regulated sport, just like cars are allowed for driving :)
Exactly, and it's what we in the UK already have. Other than short-barrel pistol shooting all sporting shooting is free to be done in the UK.


I don't think people would be too happy with free use on guns when you have stupid teenagers that have played COD all there lives deciding to snipe people from their council flat.
There is no link between computer game violence and real world violence, regardless of how much the NRA would like to pretend there is.

[Kardan]

Exactly, and it's what we in the UK already have. Other than short-barrel pistol shooting all sporting shooting is free to be done in the UK.


There is no link between computer game violence and real world violence, regardless of how much the NRA would like to pretend there is.

There probably isn't now, since teenagers can't freely get their hands on guns, but if guns were made legal? Who knows. All I know is, I would rather have an intruder in my house come at me with a knife, rather than point a gun at me.

[Chippiewill]

There probably isn't now, since teenagers can't freely get their hands on guns.
In America many teenagers can freely get their hands on guns since their parents don't restrict their access to them.

[Kardan]

In America many teenagers can freely get their hands on guns since their parents don't restrict their access to them.

Fair point :) My point was an assumption, so I didn't expect it to be right :)

I'd also like to prove this whole 'Switzerland has guns, and they're okay about it' thing...

Let's look at the number of gun crime fatalities per 100,000 people:

United States: 10.2
Switzerland: 3.5
United Kingdom: 0.25

Of course, this counts suicides, and as the article quoted, lets just not count them:

United States: 3.7
Switzerland: 0.52
United Kingdom: 0.04

[The Don]

This is what I have to say on the matter...


Your entire argument is built around the false assumption that every criminal would be able to gain access to a gun if they were banned which simply isn’t true. Since you haven’t bothered to solidify your points with any evidence I’ll bring in statistics.

There were 6,285 firearm offences recorded by police in England and Wales from September 2010 to September 2011 which accounted for 0.2% of all recorded crime. Here’s the interesting part, 9.3% of all homicides in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm (meaning over 90% of all homicides did not involve a gun) this is polarised by California’s statistics where over 2/3rd’s of all murders during 2011 (68%) were committed using a gun. If your argument was valid (which it isn’t) then the percentage of murders committed using a firearm would be far higher than it actually is. Since a gun is superior to any other weapon such as knives etc. then by your logic all murders committed would include a firearm of some sort since every criminal, according to you, can easily obtain a firearm. In the real world, it is much harder to obtain a gun if they are banned (using the UK as an example) than you actually think it is. Legalising them would certainly have a negative effect and would be senseless to do so.

Rather than fighting fire with fire by placing armed guards in schools, which is preposterous might I add, the US should focus more on mental health care and preventing things such as columbine (where there actually was an armed guard on duty there at the time who was unable to keep the 13 students murdered safe) before they actually happen.



And fact ought to be used over baseless opinions which aren't backed up whatsoever.

Sources:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

[Kardan]

This is what I have to say on the matter...

I would rep you, but alas I've given too much out because of the silly Christmas rep thread :P

[GommeInc]

Banning guns in the US would be completely useless now, the damage has been done and it's simply too late to attempt such a thing.

[Kardan]

Banning guns in the US would be completely useless now, the damage has been done and it's simply too late to attempt such a thing.

I agree sadly, but I think the debate is once again on about legalising guns in the UK.

[GommeInc]

I agree sadly, but I think the debate is once again on about legalising guns in the UK.
They sort of are legal, and we really do not need them if ownership was set to be opened up further. Less guns in circulation the better, the relevant authorities see to the gun black market and are quite effective. Plus the amount of crimes that would need a gun are non-existent - these days petty crimes are on the up and arming yourself against those sorts of crimes is useless, especially when it's mostly the elderly who would probably end up shot dead by their own weapon(s) as they are the primary targets.

[peteyt]

Why did we need another post for this. Yes loads of stuff can be used for weapons but I'm sure if the guy came in with a knife and not a gun the other day the people around him would have been able to with strain him a lot easier. Guns are bad, and 99 percent of gun use is bad, so banning them would help more than hinder in my opinion.

Until something is done I fell we are going to get more and more incidents like this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/67bd53477f9153bc2b841e894d2e834c/tumblr_mf3649e8EO1qz72ywo1_500.jpg

Interesting that you bring up mental health, yet are a big advocate of legalising or relaxing drug laws.


Well, you could hurt them a whole lot more if you used a gun.

And if the staff had a gun they could shoot the ******* dead as soon as he got off the first shot.


I stopped reading there to be honest. 'Of course you wouldn't is absolutely ridiculous, and then 'You would have to be mad to do such a thing...', well, yes, most people that do murder many people usually are mad.

This one dude's point of view won't change my views on it. Using the argument 'But knives kill more people, so lets ban them' is stupid, and I know Undertake, you use it quite often, because you always like to bring in banning homosexuality and sex in general. We're talking about things that are used to mainly murder people and have no other use in society today. Kitchen knives for example, 99.999...% of the time, they are used in the kitchen as expected. Same for cars, not many people go on a murderous rampage compared to the amount that use them everyday for transport. Guns however, well, what other uses are there except for injuring/killing.

This is quite an old debate really. Many more people are anti-guns, but there will be a few that support it, and so be it :)

This argument comes up often, and to which I respond gay sex isn't a need either. Nor are one night stands in clubs, nor are certain knives and nor are cars which can reach speeches of over 70mph+. None of these things are needed, but because we live in a free society (or used to do so) we accept the risks that go with the benefits of freedom and being able to make our own choices.

If you want to ban guns to protect people then thats fine, but that also compels you to look at regulating or banning many other areas of social life - from all kinds of sex to pornography, from violent games to fast food, from fast cars to dangerous sports. If you think you know best then by all means, start campaigning to have a range of things banned.

Personally i'd value my freedom with a little risk a lot more than being told what I can or cannot have by the faceless state.


There probably isn't now, since teenagers can't freely get their hands on guns, but if guns were made legal? Who knows. All I know is, I would rather have an intruder in my house come at me with a knife, rather than point a gun at me.

So if he comes at you with a gun, would you rather have a gun or a knife?


Why did we need another post for this. Yes loads of stuff can be used for weapons but I'm sure if the guy came in with a knife and not a gun the other day the people around him would have been able to with strain him a lot easier. Guns are bad, and 99 percent of gun use is bad, so banning them would help more than hinder in my opinion.

Until something is done I fell we are going to get more and more incidents like this.

We are not talking about if he comes in with a knife, he came in with a gun and madmen will get hold of guns. Period.

So the only question that remains is, should law abiding citizens be able to defend themselves with a gun or not?

That is the debate, the rest is hypothetical rubbish.

[Kardan]

So if he comes at you with a gun, would you rather have a gun or a knife?

Neither, I'm screwed either way. If someone breaks into my bedroom whilst I'm asleep and I wake up and see he has a gun, bang, I'm dead. If I see he has a knife, at least I have a chance to leap out the way and try to escape whilst he lunges for me.

You say give people guns because criminals have guns, heck, what about stopping criminals having guns? And I know it's been pointed out *so* many times, but the amount of criminals with guns here in the UK is really low compared to everything else.

And with the 'Arm teachers in schools debate', how could the teacher kill the dude after he got the first shot off, if he shot the teacher first? All it takes is for him to keep an eye on the door and shoot any adult that comes in before he continues with killing the children. And then of course, even if teachers do have guns, do they have the balls to shoot someone dead, especially in front of children? The majority of teachers in the latest massacre focused on getting their children to safety rather than the two ladies I think it was who decided to go after the gunman and ultimately died.

[Chippiewill]

And if the staff had a gun they could shoot the ******* dead as soon as he got off the first shot.
Solution to guns in schools, more guns in schools? You're ridiculous.

[xxMATTGxx]

Undertaker really thinks staff in the schools should have guns? LMAO. Oh my god, you are ******* crazy. Your comparisons are also crazy and unrelated 98% of the time. You are ridiculous.

[iAdam]

There is no decent reason for a member of the public to own a gun. Use for sport should be controlled and limited.

The crap that America spew about it being a constitutional right is ridiculous. It's also a right for people to feel safe. I would not feel safe knowing that anybody I meet in the street could have a concealed device that is designed to kill a person. It's absolutely ridiculously to advocate public gun licensing.

[dbgtz]

Interesting that you bring up mental health, yet are a big advocate of legalising or relaxing drug laws.

Haven't some drugs been proven to benefit mental health... Either way, I'm not sure how drug laws are anything to do with guns.



And if the staff had a gun they could shoot the ******* dead as soon as he got off the first shot.




they could shoot




could


Yes and alternatively they could be shot down before they even get a chance to defend themself.

I don't get why you bring up the same crap over and over again when you get defeated on the point. Infact, I can't even be bothered with this whole topic when you just ignore what everyone puts.

[peteyt]

If you want to ban guns to protect people then thats fine, but that also compels you to look at regulating or banning many other areas of social life - from all kinds of sex to pornography, from violent games to fast food, from fast cars to dangerous sports. If you think you know best then by all means, start campaigning to have a range of things banned.

Sorry but when did pornography kill anyone? Well obviously sex can lead to STI's but most people these days use protection. It's not like someone goes around shooting their STI's at people for the sake of it. And violence in video games? There's no proof it effects anyone. Usually the people supposedly influenced by stuff on TV e.g. the kid who killed his mother in a similar way to Coronation Street's John Stape, well he was messed up from the beginning and would have flipped anyway's eventually.

The thing is all the things mentioned have proper uses. Cars can kill, and lots of accidents happen, but guns don't really have a purpose other than to kill.

[IceNineKills]

If you want to ban guns to protect people then thats fine, but that also compels you to look at regulating or banning many other areas of social life - from all kinds of sex to pornography, from violent games to fast food, from fast cars to dangerous sports. If you think you know best then by all means, start campaigning to have a range of things banned.

Banning Pornography, fast food, violents games etc doesn't have the same affect as someone with a real gun. I personally think that you're talking complete rubbish here.

Sure, guns were invited to kill but it's not the gun that kills someone, it's the person holding the gun. Even if America was to have a gun law brought into place, I really doubt anything will chance for such a long time. They have been allowed guns for far too long and the amount in circulation is far greater than many other countries. It just annoys me that so many people have had to die for the american government to even think of chaning the law this far on.

I am completely for America to have some sort of gun law but I really don't think it will do much good for another 15-30 years.

But even if they did crack down on guns, if someone wanted to kill someone, they would find something else to use. As stated in the original first post, a country will not bad kitchen knives even though many peple use them to kill. America has been the same way with guns and I really can't see them changing their ways at all.

[FiftyCal]

Gun Control works great, just ask Hitler and the holocaust victims.

[Kardan]

Gun Control works great, just ask Hitler and the holocaust victims.

Just because Hitler was for something, doesn't mean it's automatically bad/evil/doesn't work.

In that case we should ban vegetarianism, motorways and the olympic torch relay.

[FiftyCal]

Just because Hitler was for something, doesn't mean it's automatically bad/evil/doesn't work.

In that case we should ban vegetarianism, motorways and the olympic torch relay.
I am speaking for the United States because our government is pretty corrupt as it is so there is a fine example of how things could turn out. If they want to ban guns, the government should be the complete role model and be the first ones to disarm themselves. If you guys think disarming good citizens is the way to go, you might as well start disarming police officers.

[Kardan]

I am speaking for the United States because our government is pretty corrupt as it is so there is a fine example of how things could turn out. If they want to ban guns, the government should be the complete role model and be the first ones to disarm themselves. If you guys think disarming good citizens is the way to go, you might as well start disarming police officers.

And I'm speaking for the UK :P

For the US, obviously I'd feel it would be better if guns were banned, but the issue is that you already have guns. Asking everyone to hand in their guns is not only logistically a nightmare, but it wouldn't work. And even if you theoretically consider that the majority of people did hand their guns in, crime would probably increase in the US since criminals now know that people aren't armed. The UK and US are different in this case, so I can understand that it's very difficult for the US to change their laws, and I honestly don't expect them too, despite the recent outcry.

The UK however has no reason to bring in guns.

[FiftyCal]

And I'm speaking for the UK :P

For the US, obviously I'd feel it would be better if guns were banned, but the issue is that you already have guns. Asking everyone to hand in their guns is not only logistically a nightmare, but it wouldn't work. And even if you theoretically consider that the majority of people did hand their guns in, crime would probably increase in the US since criminals now know that people aren't armed. The UK and US are different in this case, so I can understand that it's very difficult for the US to change their laws, and I honestly don't expect them too, despite the recent outcry.

The UK however has no reason to bring in guns. This is what I've been trying to say all along! If it makes people feel better, they already have gun turn in booths and you get $200 cash for each gun you turn in.

[peteyt]

I am speaking for the United States because our government is pretty corrupt as it is so there is a fine example of how things could turn out. If they want to ban guns, the government should be the complete role model and be the first ones to disarm themselves. If you guys think disarming good citizens is the way to go, you might as well start disarming police officers.

Then wouldn't you then complain when the government got attacked and couldn't protect you. It annoys me that people who complain about the army and so on usually are the people who would complain if we lost because we didn't have a force to protect us.

[dirrty]

tbf after dunblane, handguns were banned in the UK in 1997. but compared to the US, we dont deem guns as a right anyway, so...

[FlyingJesus]

Understandable since guns have been "necessary" in America ever since its colonisation so that they could commit mass genocide, and as we all know genocide is a basic human right

[Sian]

I have one thing to say, you can be the sanest human on this earth, yet due to human nature being unstable you can just snap and kill someone.

So easy access to guns, or acces to guns full stop, stupid, in my opinion.

[FiftyCal]

Then wouldn't you then complain when the government got attacked and couldn't protect you. It annoys me that people who complain about the army and so on usually are the people who would complain if we lost because we didn't have a force to protect us. The only reason the government would be attacked is because of a revolutionary war from the citizens due to Tyranny, that would happen before a foreign country attacked the USA. I am not against the troops, i am against the wars. I would rather us build a good defense than to continuously spending money funding the stupid wars that are currently happening.

[peteyt]

The only reason the government would be attacked is because of a revolutionary war from the citizens due to Tyranny, that would happen before a foreign country attacked the USA. I am not against the troops, i am against the wars. I would rather us build a good defense than to continuously spending money funding the stupid wars that are currently happening.

Wait so you are saying if we disarmed all of America, no one would attack - All I will say to that is 9/11


Also I'm sick of the whole games are to blame, videos are to blame. No, the person is to blame!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Neither, I'm screwed either way. If someone breaks into my bedroom whilst I'm asleep and I wake up and see he has a gun, bang, I'm dead. If I see he has a knife, at least I have a chance to leap out the way and try to escape whilst he lunges for me.

Well it's all very wel if he gives you the choice of what weapon he's going to use, but most criminals aren't going to offer a choice.


You say give people guns because criminals have guns, heck, what about stopping criminals having guns? And I know it's been pointed out *so* many times, but the amount of criminals with guns here in the UK is really low compared to everything else.

Because in order to bring down the amount of criminals having guns, you've got to ban completely normal peoppe having guns - which stills leaves the problem of criminals having guns and law abiding people having none. In a free society, i'd rather have the slight increased risk of gun crime and be able to defend myself when the time comes as opposed to being a sitting duck.


And with the 'Arm teachers in schools debate', how could the teacher kill the dude after he got the first shot off, if he shot the teacher first? All it takes is for him to keep an eye on the door and shoot any adult that comes in before he continues with killing the children. And then of course, even if teachers do have guns, do they have the balls to shoot someone dead, especially in front of children? The majority of teachers in the latest massacre focused on getting their children to safety rather than the two ladies I think it was who decided to go after the gunman and ultimately died.

If the school has numerous teachers armed or even has an armed guard, then the chances of preventing a massacre are lowered. Is it 100% concrete as a workable deterrent? no, of course not. But it's a hell of a lot better than a 'gun free zone'.

Don't take my word for it, the one you backed in 2012 for re-election sends his kids to a school with around 8 armed guards.


Solution to guns in schools, more guns in schools? You're ridiculous.

Better than your solution; a gun free zone - which is what those schools were.


Undertaker really thinks staff in the schools should have guns? LMAO. Oh my god, you are ******* crazy. Your comparisons are also crazy and unrelated 98% of the time. You are ridiculous.

Crazy? didn't you back Obama for re-election? you know, the man who sends his children to a school with armed guards and who he himself is surrounded by men carrying very large automatic weapons - but then decries guns on television and you all sit there puppy eyed before the great Obama and his words of wisdom.

You're all taken for fools, willing fools at that. Thankfully the US Constitution was designed to prevent this sort of idol-led majority idioacy.


Haven't some drugs been proven to benefit mental health... Either way, I'm not sure how drug laws are anything to do with guns.

No, drugs have been shown to badly mess peoples minds up - and indeed, the majority of the shootings (including Raoul Moat here in the UK) have been undertaken by people who were on drugs such as anti-depressants. (see article)


Yes and alternatively they could be shot down before they even get a chance to defend themself.

I don't get why you bring up the same crap over and over again when you get defeated on the point. Infact, I can't even be bothered with this whole topic when you just ignore what everyone puts.

I haven't been defeated on anything my dear, saying i've been defeated doesn't make it true. The majority of you against guns are simply going on emotion as opposed to logic and reason. There are something like 300m guns in the United States and you're all calling for a ban on guns - are you insane? how on earth does that make any sense?

If you want a country thats banned guns and has a gun culture, look at the United States of Mexico.


Sorry but when did pornography kill anyone? Well obviously sex can lead to STI's but most people these days use protection.

Most guns owners don't shoot people either. So why ban one but not the other?


It's not like someone goes around shooting their STI's at people for the sake of it.

Oh you'd be surprised. But even so, why does that matter? surely if you care about saving lives, then saving lives is all that counts...


And violence in video games? There's no proof it effects anyone. Usually the people supposedly influenced by stuff on TV e.g. the kid who killed his mother in a similar way to Coronation Street's John Stape, well he was messed up from the beginning and would have flipped anyway's eventually.

The thing is all the things mentioned have proper uses. Cars can kill, and lots of accidents happen, but guns don't really have a purpose other than to kill.

The purpose of a gun to 99.9% of people is self defence, that's not murder - unless you're against self defence?


Banning Pornography, fast food, violents games etc doesn't have the same affect as someone with a real gun. I personally think that you're talking complete rubbish here.

No, what i'm doing is pointing out that the argument that we should ban guns to save people's lives is a fallacy as you won't dare consider banning other things which also cause death and illness on a large scale. If you really cared about saving lives via the state, then you'd be calling for state regulation or bans in most of these areas as we've seen with smoking.

Personally i'm against state regulation as I would rather be less safe and free as opposed to safe and not free, but it's your call.


Sure, guns were invited to kill but it's not the gun that kills someone, it's the person holding the gun. Even if America was to have a gun law brought into place, I really doubt anything will chance for such a long time. They have been allowed guns for far too long and the amount in circulation is far greater than many other countries. It just annoys me that so many people have had to die for the american government to even think of chaning the law this far on.

I am completely for America to have some sort of gun law but I really don't think it will do much good for another 15-30 years.

But even if they did crack down on guns, if someone wanted to kill someone, they would find something else to use. As stated in the original first post, a country will not bad kitchen knives even though many peple use them to kill. America has been the same way with guns and I really can't see them changing their ways at all.

America already has strict gun and licensing laws, you are obviously unaware of this as are most people posting in this thread.


Wait so you are saying if we disarmed all of America, no one would attack - All I will say to that is 9/11

Also I'm sick of the whole games are to blame, videos are to blame. No, the person is to blame!

You confuse tyranny with foreigners, tyranny is most likely to come to the United States via it's own government.

Even the Founding Fathers said that.

[FlyingJesus]

No, drugs have been shown to badly mess peoples minds up - and indeed, the majority of the shootings (including Raoul Moat here in the UK) have been undertaken by people who were on drugs such as anti-depressants. (see article)

This I already dealt with - if you want to blame mental health issues then blame mental health issues, you cannot take just one potential symptom of what is clearly the main driving factor and claim it to be an evil. If one has mental health issues they are quite likely to be on some sort of medication, but to then say that it's anti-depressants causing these attacks rather than the far more obvious trigger of the depression/anxiety/etc itself is utter folly. You clearly do not know how these medicines work or even how the medical community views them (hint: it's not as a quick and absolute fix) and there's really no sense in making statements about things you aren't versed in. As an aside, the thing that's far more in common with all of these shooters is that they had guns


The purpose of a gun to 99.9% of people is self defence, that's not murder - unless you're against self defence?

I don't know if you're intentionally misreading what people say or if you genuinely don't get it somehow, but it really should not be this difficult for you to admit to the fact that outside of sport the only function a gun has is to heavily maim or kill. Self defence does not require the death of the antagonist


No, what i'm doing is pointing out that the argument that we should ban guns to save people's lives is a fallacy as you won't dare consider banning other things which also cause death and illness on a large scale. If you really cared about saving lives via the state, then you'd be calling for state regulation or bans in most of these areas as we've seen with smoking.

A potential risk factor to an individual through that individual's own choices is not the same as forced injury and death through assault. People choose to eat burgers and play football, outside of Hollywood they do not choose to be shot

[Kardan]

In a free society, i'd rather have the slight increased risk of gun crime and be able to defend myself when the time comes as opposed to being a sitting duck.

Then America is the country for you! I'm pretty sure the majority of the country would prefer the lower gun crime, considering the fact that there aren't many times in life you will want to defend yourself in your own home. I just don't get why you are so pro guns just because you want to defend yourself in your home. Do you live in the middle of some south american drug gangs or something? For the majority of the UK, people aren't kept awake at night thinking 'I don't have a gun, how will I stop anyone who breaks in?'

You say you want to be able to defend yourself from crime by making crime rates higher. It's just silly. I do agree that people have a right to defend themselves in their own home, but allowing guns isn't the answer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This I already dealt with - if you want to blame mental health issues then blame mental health issues, you cannot take just one potential symptom of what is clearly the main driving factor and claim it to be an evil. If one has mental health issues they are quite likely to be on some sort of medication, but to then say that it's anti-depressants causing these attacks rather than the far more obvious trigger of the depression/anxiety/etc itself is utter folly. You clearly do not know how these medicines work or even how the medical community views them (hint: it's not as a quick and absolute fix) and there's really no sense in making statements about things you aren't versed in. As an aside, the thing that's far more in common with all of these shooters is that they had guns

Indeed but there's the question as to whether these drugs change people in such a way that it alters their mental state (which is what drugs do) so that they become so deluded they carry out these sorts of crimes. We don't know, but i'd like to see a proper investigation into this as the pattern emerging seems to be soley those who have been taking drugs.

I know you're incredibly soft on drugs when much evidence points to how dangerous and mind numbing they can be, but i'm not going to sit here and listen to you blame guns (which do not have a mind of their own) when the real cause of gun crime is both gun culture and maybe even drugs given how they can alter the mind. A gun cannot take drugs, a person can.


I don't know if you're intentionally misreading what people say or if you genuinely don't get it somehow, but it really should not be this difficult for you to admit to the fact that outside of sport the only function a gun has is to heavily maim or kill. Self defence does not require the death of the antagonist

For somebody my size of even an older man or lady - or even a normal person - a gun is the only weapon which gives us the chance to defend ourselves. If I use a knife on somebody breaking into my house, it's far more likely in the fight they'll be able to harm me much more with their bare hands - let alone what happens when they get the gun. A knife or baseball bat requires hand to hand combat, a gun does not.

As i've said before, thank heavens this is all in the US Constitution - so that these foolish arguments will never win the day.


A potential risk factor to an individual through that individual's own choices is not the same as forced injury and death through assault. People choose to eat burgers and play football, outside of Hollywood they do not choose to be shot

Who said it was? i'm merely making the point that if it's lives people care about saving (which is what we constantly hear of hence the whole reason for this debate) then people ought to start looking at other things to ban and regulate.

But even so, if I don't commit a crime then why should I be presumed guilty and have my gun taken away from me? liberty and innocence until proven guilty is much more important than the tyranny of the majority. Rather like being back school when the teacher punished the whole class for the actions of the class clown - wrong, wrong, wrong.


Then America is the country for you! I'm pretty sure the majority of the country would prefer the lower gun crime, considering the fact that there aren't many times in life you will want to defend yourself in your own home. I just don't get why you are so pro guns just because you want to defend yourself in your home. Do you live in the middle of some south american drug gangs or something? For the majority of the UK, people aren't kept awake at night thinking 'I don't have a gun, how will I stop anyone who breaks in?'

People who live in middle class areas aren't kept awake, no. Those who live in inner city areas such as Norris Green or Toxteth in Liverpool are terrified of being broken into and beaten which is so common nowadays, especially senseless beating of old women and men in their own homes. You're so out of touch much like the politicians of this country, you have no idea what some people in this country live through - the torment by teenagers as the law has left them and there's no defence against thugs and theft across great swathes of this country.

As I have asked before, who the heck are you to tell me or those people that they don't have a right to defend themselves?


You say you want to be able to defend yourself from crime by making crime rates higher. It's just silly. I do agree that people have a right to defend themselves in their own home, but allowing guns isn't the answer.

Case studies disprove this - Switzerland vs the US, Mexico vs the US, Texas vs liberal areas with strict gun laws.

It's culture silly, not guns being legal.

[FlyingJesus]

Indeed but there's the question as to whether these drugs change people in such a way that it alters their mental state (which is what drugs do) so that they become so deluded they carry out these sorts of crimes. We don't know, but i'd like to see a proper investigation into this as the pattern emerging seems to be soley those who have been taking drugs.

Again, you're showing your ignorance of how these substances work. The massive majority of anti-depressants simply attempt to re-balance the chemicals which most people have naturally in their systems, nothing to do with delusions. They are intended to help the sufferer cope with daily life as best they can while they make other personal changes by themselves to combat whatever may be causing their afflictions - they're a support system and nothing more. As I said, of course these mentally disturbed people are being medicated (records of such are how we know that they have these problems) but the issue is their long suffering, not their medication


I know you're incredibly soft on drugs when much evidence points to how dangerous and mind numbing they can be, but i'm not going to sit here and listen to you blame guns (which do not have a mind of their own) when the real cause of gun crime is both gun culture and maybe even drugs given how they can alter the mind. A gun cannot take drugs, a person can.

A gun can't take drugs and drugs can't take a gun, you're saying that it's ludicrous to blame one animate substance for the acts of a person and then in the very same breath doing that with another


For somebody my size of even an older man or lady - or even a normal person - a gun is the only weapon which gives us the chance to defend ourselves. If I use a knife on somebody breaking into my house, it's far more likely in the fight they'll be able to harm me much more with their bare hands - let alone what happens when they get the gun. A knife or baseball bat requires hand to hand combat, a gun does not.

But I thought it was only those crazy gay European drug-using criminals from broken homes who had the mentality to actually use a gun against another person? If that's the case then having one won't help Joe Average, and if it's not the case then everyone becomes a threat that could snap at any second


But even so, if I don't commit a crime then why should I be presumed guilty and have my gun taken away from me? liberty and innocence until proven guilty is much more important than the tyranny of the majority.

Absolutely loving how you talk about tyranny while promoting a culture of fear where a strong few could quite readily control and corrupt large areas. Look up gang culture and its roots

[xxMATTGxx]

Crazy? didn't you back Obama for re-election? you know, the man who sends his children to a school with armed guards and who he himself is surrounded by men carrying very large automatic weapons - but then decries guns on television and you all sit there puppy eyed before the great Obama and his words of wisdom.

You mean like any previous President of the United States and also any future President? Oh yeah...I love how you just mention Obama in regards of that when the armed guards has been set in stone to protect the President and it's family for a very long time.

[Kardan]

You mean like any previous President of the United States and also any future President? Oh yeah...

And also any president that Undertaker ever decides to back ;)

[xxMATTGxx]

And also any president that Undertaker ever decides to back ;)

Exactly. Would he also say the same if any member of the Royal Family said the same message while also being protected by people with guns?

[dbgtz]

No, drugs have been shown to badly mess peoples minds up - and indeed, the majority of the shootings (including Raoul Moat here in the UK) have been undertaken by people who were on drugs such as anti-depressants. (see article)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/marijuana-fights-cancer-and-helps-manage-side-effects-researchers-find.html
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/harvard-study-marijuana-slows-cancer-tumor-growth/

etc. Yeah I would never say drugs are perfect and they may have side effects, but usually the cure is not worse than the disease.



I haven't been defeated on anything my dear, saying i've been defeated doesn't make it true. The majority of you against guns are simply going on emotion as opposed to logic and reason. There are something like 300m guns in the United States and you're all calling for a ban on guns - are you insane? how on earth does that make any sense?

If you want a country thats banned guns and has a gun culture, look at the United States of Mexico.



Personally, I would initially ban the sale of anything related to it and later ban it outright.

You may use Mexico as an example, but I would imagine being right next to southern states doesn't help.

[Chippiewill]

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and others like it have gained notoriety since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin and a number of other similar cases. The laws, which exist in two dozen states, give gun-holders more authority to shoot and kill in self-defense and police wide latitude for interpretation.

Over a 10-year period there was an 8 percent increase in homicides in the states that passed Stand Your Ground laws, according to new research from Texas A&M University. The law did not deter burglary, robbery or assault either.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/03/1390221/report-states-with-stand-your-ground-laws-see-more-homicides/?mobile=nc

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND PUT GUNS IN SCHOOLS HURDURP

[peteyt]

Crazy? didn't you back Obama for re-election? you know, the man who sends his children to a school with armed guards and who he himself is surrounded by men carrying very large automatic weapons - but then decries guns on television and you all sit there puppy eyed before the great Obama and his words of wisdom.

You're all taken for fools, willing fools at that. Thankfully the US Constitution was designed to prevent this sort of idol-led majority idioacy.

You keep mentioning arming teachers then talking about armed guards. While I disagree with both there is a difference and one to me is at least better and more realistic. Yes the school Obama's children go to may have an armed guard, but I presume the teachers themselves are not armed. There is a massive difference with having someone trained with fire weapons protecting people with having random teachers. Teachers are not expected to have to use or even carry a weapon and many may find this difficult.

Ask yourself this. What if all the teachers refuse to have weapons. You can offer to give people support but if the majority of the teachers don't want to even be anywhere near a gun then you can't really force them - that would risk a majority quitting at a time where education is extremely important.

You also mention the people protecting Obama. What you seem to be thinking is that most of us wan't no one armed which is far from the truth for a lot. I have nothing wrong with people whose job it is to potentially have to use firearms to have access to firearms and to in some circumstances have the ability to use them guards, the army, police etc prime examples. What I disagree with and feel most on here do to, is the ability for the general public to also have access to these weapons.

I had a debate on this online with someone from America who sadly believed the same as you and he even went as far as to mention in the debate bombs and biological weapons as if general people could get hold of these.

Also I feel it is you who is being taken for a fool. Wasn't the constitution wrote at a very different time to today and I'm sure I read the framework in it allows it to be edited and updated meaning the whole gun law can be changed theoretically.

[Ardemax]

-:Undertaker:- to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun.

It still makes me chuckle how pro-conservative pro-gun pro-Obama-is-a-muslim Americans believe that owning a gun is a fundamental human right. There's an easier way to describe them: 'nut-jobs'.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, you're showing your ignorance of how these substances work. The massive majority of anti-depressants simply attempt to re-balance the chemicals which most people have naturally in their systems, nothing to do with delusions. They are intended to help the sufferer cope with daily life as best they can while they make other personal changes by themselves to combat whatever may be causing their afflictions - they're a support system and nothing more. As I said, of course these mentally disturbed people are being medicated (records of such are how we know that they have these problems) but the issue is their long suffering, not their medication

I'm sorry, but drugs alter the brain - there have been many medical examples in the past where drugs have been considered perfectly safe and normal, and years later we discover the real effects they have on people. A nation addicted to mind bending drugs is not a healthy one, and the fact that most (if not all) of the mass murderer shootings are on these drugs certainly need investigating.

But let's say it is their mental state which causes them to do this, the issue then is having the correct mental system to deal with people such as this. In the United Kingdom for example, we closed down the asylums in the 1990s which has resulted in unbalanced people killing others, or often wrongly ending up in a normal prison when they deserve to be in an asylum where they can have the help and protection they need on offer.

I see no push for any of this, simply a manic drive via emotional argument by dummies to ban guns.


A gun can't take drugs and drugs can't take a gun, you're saying that it's ludicrous to blame one animate substance for the acts of a person and then in the very same breath doing that with another

Oh no, if you take drugs and then carry out these actions I believe you are 100% responsible for your actions as any sane person takes drugs (well, you have to be a bit cracked to in the first place) in the knowledge that they change your state of mind. Whilst the drugs may lead to these shootings, the fault rests entirely with the person - not the guns or the drugs.


But I thought it was only those crazy gay European drug-using criminals from broken homes who had the mentality to actually use a gun against another person? If that's the case then having one won't help Joe Average, and if it's not the case then everyone becomes a threat that could snap at any second

Law abiding people don't become a threat, millions of Americans have guns in their homes and die naturally without a shot ever being fired.


Absolutely loving how you talk about tyranny while promoting a culture of fear where a strong few could quite readily control and corrupt large areas. Look up gang culture and its roots

Oh that's funny, are you aware of how the hangs in the 1920s and 1930s America arose? are you aware of why drug cartels have so much power? because the stuff they sell is illegal via the government. The same applies to guns, criminals will still be able to get hold of guns just as they could widely distribute beer and do with drugs.


You mean like any previous President of the United States and also any future President? Oh yeah...I love how you just mention Obama in regards of that when the armed guards has been set in stone to protect the President and it's family for a very long time.

If the President believes guns don't protect innocent people like he and his family then he should surrender those guns immediately and lead by example. The same applies for any other President in history who thinks alike.


And also any president that Undertaker ever decides to back ;)

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy, Ron Paul believes in gun rights - so I haven't a problem with him hiring armed guards (which he did out of his own pocket) to protect him and his family. I do however have a problem with the Great Obama and others chanting against run rights whilst walking around with heavily armed guards holding automatic weapons.


Exactly. Would he also say the same if any member of the Royal Family said the same message while also being protected by people with guns?

Yes, any member of the Royal Family who spoke out against gun rights I would suggest they surrender their armed guard.

Absolutely.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/marijuana-fights-cancer-and-helps-manage-side-effects-researchers-find.html
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/harvard-study-marijuana-slows-cancer-tumor-growth/

etc. Yeah I would never say drugs are perfect and they may have side effects, but usually the cure is not worse than the disease.

The pro-drugs lobby is very powerful and spreads many lies about how drugs are harmless, linking me one article or study on them isn't going to suddenly convert me. Drugs have an affect on the brain and thats the fact of it, you only have to look at many former drug addicts to see how addled their brains have become from drug usage.

They're not the harmless sweeties their painted out to be by people like Tom.


Personally, I would initially ban the sale of anything related to it and later ban it outright.

You may use Mexico as an example, but I would imagine being right next to southern states doesn't help.

The guns come from Mexico into the United States along with the illegal immigrants, not the other way around.


You keep mentioning arming teachers then talking about armed guards. While I disagree with both there is a difference and one to me is at least better and more realistic. Yes the school Obama's children go to may have an armed guard, but I presume the teachers themselves are not armed. There is a massive difference with having someone trained with fire weapons protecting people with having random teachers. Teachers are not expected to have to use or even carry a weapon and many may find this difficult.

I don't advocate forcing anybody to do anything, I would simply like to send my children (like President Obama) to a school which has protections in place - whether thats armed guards, an armed headmaster or armed teachers.

My choice, you'd agree yes?


Ask yourself this. What if all the teachers refuse to have weapons. You can offer to give people support but if the majority of the teachers don't want to even be anywhere near a gun then you can't really force them - that would risk a majority quitting at a time where education is extremely important.

I don't advocate forcing the teachers or schools to do anything, I simply ask that you allow schools the choice to decide their own policy.


You also mention the people protecting Obama. What you seem to be thinking is that most of us wan't no one armed which is far from the truth for a lot. I have nothing wrong with people whose job it is to potentially have to use firearms to have access to firearms and to in some circumstances have the ability to use them guards, the army, police etc prime examples. What I disagree with and feel most on here do to, is the ability for the general public to also have access to these weapons.

So Obama is allowed to be armed but we, the plebs, are not?

No deal.


I had a debate on this online with someone from America who sadly believed the same as you and he even went as far as to mention in the debate bombs and biological weapons as if general people could get hold of these.

Also I feel it is you who is being taken for a fool. Wasn't the constitution wrote at a very different time to today and I'm sure I read the framework in it allows it to be edited and updated meaning the whole gun law can be changed theoretically.

Oh for crying out loud, the constitution was written not for hunting rights or not even self defence - the reason why the second amendment was put into the constitution was that the Founding Fathers (many having come from tyrannies in Europe) wanted to make sure that a government would not be able to oppress its own people in the land of the free.

You haven't done your homework and it shows.


-:Undertaker:- to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun.

It still makes me chuckle how pro-conservative pro-gun pro-Obama-is-a-muslim Americans believe that owning a gun is a fundamental human right. There's an easier way to describe them: 'nut-jobs'.

So you believe that a stage can be reached where every single US citizen does not have a gun?

[Ardemax]

So you believe that a stage can be reached where every single US citizen does not have a gun?

Of course not. This is 'MURICA we're talking about here. It's like starting a forest fire and then asking when the last tree will stop burning. Had the US thought a little bit more about the "right to bear arms" then I'm sure it would have benefited them a whole lot more in the present.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course not. This is 'MURICA we're talking about here. It's like starting a forest fire and then asking when the last tree will stop burning. Had the US thought a little bit more about the "right to bear arms" then I'm sure it would have benefited them a whole lot more in the present.

And fallen under an oppressive government like Italy, Russia, France, Germany, Prussia and countless other sovereign states in that period did?

Can I also ask, since you seem to rule out America because of it's gun rights history and Second Amendment, can you name me one other country today which has not one of it's citizens in ownership of a gun? you may rule out America, but you can't rule out every single nation.

[dbgtz]

The pro-drugs lobby is very powerful and spreads many lies about how drugs are harmless, linking me one article or study on them isn't going to suddenly convert me. Drugs have an affect on the brain and thats the fact of it, you only have to look at many former drug addicts to see how addled their brains have become from drug usage.

They're not the harmless sweeties their painted out to be by people like Tom.


So all of your sources are articles, but you won't accept articles as sources? Good logic there. I never even implied they were harmless, but in controlled doses can be beneficial.



The guns come from Mexico into the United States along with the illegal immigrants, not the other way around.


Source? No articles please, the anti-immigration supporters & immigrants spread lies.

[Ardemax]

And fallen under an oppressive government like Italy, Russia, France, Germany, Prussia and countless other sovereign states in that period did?

Can I also ask, since you seem to rule out America because of it's gun rights history and Second Amendment, can you name me one other country today which has not one of it's citizens in ownership of a gun? you may rule out America, but you can't rule out every single nation.

That's a rather silly question. If you tell people they can't have something then there's obviously going to be the few who do anyway.

I think I'd still feel a lot safer if our government told us that guns were illegal, rather than everyone over 18 is allowed one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So all of your sources are articles, but you won't accept articles as sources? Good logic there. I never even implied they were harmless, but in controlled doses can be beneficial.

I don't post statistics/studies barely ever as most of them are made up, I post detailed arguments along with my own thoughts.


Source? No articles please, the anti-immigration supporters & immigrants spread lies.

I'm not debating drugs, nor do I really want to - the evidence I have looked at in the past shows to me that they are dangerous and only a fool would touch them. I don't have a justify my stance as I only apply it to myself, i'd legalise drugs tommorow.

None of my business or the business of the state what drugs you want to ruin your mind with, just as it's none of your business or the business of the state whether I have a normal gun as laid out in the British/US constitution for self defence or not.


That's a rather silly question. If you tell people they can't have something then there's obviously going to be the few who do anyway.

So why did you say, and I quote;


"to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun."

Here you imply that your stated goal is for not one US citizen to own a gun, which you've now admitted to me is an unattainable goal when I asked you to name one country which has 100% of it's citizens/subjects disarmed. So therefore, your stance on this issue then is that Obama and government officials are entitled to armed protection forever (even though your supposed to be totally against guns) but this principle doesn't apply to the people?

And also, if Obama and co are entitled to armed protection - this in turn implies that non-government citizens still have possession of guns (ie, the criminal class). So the deal you are offering to the vast majority of the law abiding American public is; you have your guns removed, Obama/the political class and the criminals keep theirs.

Somehow I don't see that deal being taken up, do you?


I think I'd still feel a lot safer if our government told us that guns were illegal, rather than everyone over 18 is allowed one.

You'd feel a lot safer if the only entity that had guns was the state? wow, do you need to read a history book my friend.

Or even take a look at events in Syria as we speak.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan the fact that you are seemingly completely unaware of the difference between drug cartels and drugs users makes me even more certain of the fact that you have no idea what you're arguing about. Gangs are able to keep power because they have physical (gun related) power and financial (commerce related) power, not because they're on drugs. Every single one of your retorts is nonsensical and hyperbolical, which is simply hilarious considering how many GENUINE facts and stats you choose to ignore.

Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan the fact that you are seemingly completely unaware of the difference between drug cartels and drugs users makes me even more certain of the fact that you have no idea what you're arguing about. Gangs are able to keep power because they have physical (gun related) power and financial (commerce related) power, not because they're on drugs. Every single one of your retorts is nonsensical and hyperbolical, which is simply hilarious considering how many GENUINE facts and stats you choose to ignore.

Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner

Simply saying I have no argument rather than responding to the points doesn't make it so. If I have to keep repeating myself that Congressmen signing a piece of paper in Washington D.C. will not make a difference to the American criminal class in terms of guns then I will do so because it's a very simple and concise message, one that doesn't even need explaining to anybody who thinks rationally about this subject and who lives in the real world.

The concept is simple, your side of the debate say banning guns will mean no guns.... well drugs and alcohol have proved the total opposite.

It's written in stone, neighbouring Mexico is the living example.

If the US can't stop illegal aliens coming over the border in their millions, it hasn't a chance stopping guns.

[Kardan]

Simply saying I have no argument rather than responding to the points doesn't make it so.

The concept is simple, your side of the debate say banning guns will mean no guns.... well drugs and alcohol have proved the total opposite.

It's written in stone, Mexico is the living example.

Firearms are not illegal in Mexico. "the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents; given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law."

So surely you've just turned your own point in on yourself?

I for one have not said that. As I've said before, trying to ban guns in America won't work, and *could* make things worse. No matter what you do, you will never achieve a state of 'no guns'

[FlyingJesus]

You're asking me to respond to points which I've already responded to while you sit there dodging every actual point that's been posted and simply re-iterating the exact same message in every post - that you are totally unwilling to accept that different mediums have different properties and potentials, and that someone in the past believing in something makes it a universal truth. You recently said in the thread about the impact of Habbox on one's life that you've improved your debate skills whilst being here, which makes me genuinely wonder what level you were at previously. Did you simply point and laugh? Because the only progression I've seen in any argument you've ever made is from "this is my opinion, it is now fact" to "this is my opinion, it is now fact TWICE".

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'll just post this debate for people to watch, the best defence of gun rights I have seen so far.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Rational facts explained to a Briton who doesn't know much about guns, much like all of us here.


Firearms are not illegal in Mexico. "the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents; given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law."

So surely you've just turned your own point in on yourself?

That's rather like the United Kingdom where gun rights are also in the constitution but have been ignored, guns aren't illegal per say, but they're very difficult to acquire legally and only certain varieties etc you can buy - they're essentially illegal to put it one way. The US also has good gun restrictions in place although not as strict, meaning most law abiding people can buy them.

There is certainly a link with guns and crime, true - but thats like with anything else, you accept the increased risk in a free society. As I have repeated over and over in these debates, gun rights aren't actually there for self defence - they're there to defend against an oppressive state.


I for one have not said that. As I've said before, trying to ban guns in America won't work, and *could* make things worse. No matter what you do, you will no achieve a state of 'no guns'

Well then you agree with me that banning guns would be fruitless and even counter productive.


You're asking me to respond to points which I've already responded to while you sit there dodging every actual point that's been posted and simply re-iterating the exact same message in every post - that you are totally unwilling to accept that different mediums have different properties and potentials, and that someone in the past believing in something makes it a universal truth.

Does this refer to the Second Amendment? again, no actual substance just vague and broad points.

What do you want done in the United States over gun rights? explain to me.


You recently said in the thread about the impact of Habbox on one's life that you've improved your debate skills whilst being here, which makes me genuinely wonder what level you were at previously. Did you simply point and laugh? Because the only progression I've seen in any argument you've ever made is from "this is my opinion, it is now fact" to "this is my opinion, it is now fact TWICE".

Sounds like a self description to me.

The logic of your side of the debate throughout has been, guns = kill people and are bad, so let's ban guns.

Of which my response has been, why not ban other things which also result in high death rates?

To which the only response you lot have had has been "OMGZ BUT GUNZ R MENT TO KILL PEOPLE" - that's not an argument or logically consistent.

So we keep hitting a dead end.

[Kardan]

I'll just post this debate for people to watch, the best defence of gun rights I have seen so far.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Rational facts explained to a Briton who doesn't know much about guns, much like all of us here.



That's rather like the United Kingdom where gun rights are also in the constitution but have been ignored, guns aren't illegal per say, but they're very difficult to acquire legally and only certain varieties etc you can buy - they're essentially illegal to put it one way. The US also has good gun restrictions in place although not as strict, meaning most law abiding people can buy them.

There is certainly a link with guns and crime, true - but thats like with anything else, you accept the increased risk in a free society. As I have repeated over and over in these debates, gun rights aren't actually there for self defence - they're there to defend against an oppressive state.



Well then you agree with me that banning guns would be fruitless and even counter productive.



Does this refer to the Second Amendment? again, no actual substance just vague and broad points.

What do you want done in the United States over gun rights? explain to me.



Sounds like a self description to me.

For the US, if you banned guns outright it would simply not work these days. You will always get people that will simply not return their weapons. For the UK, guns should remain banned.

[-:Undertaker:-]

For the US, if you banned guns outright it would simply not work these days. You will always get people that will simply not return their weapons. For the UK, guns should remain banned.

Fair enough, at least the American people will remain free if an oppressive government ever arises.

Can I ask two questions in relation to the United Kingdom then? firstly, as gun crime in this country was very low before gun bans were brought in during the 1920s does this not suggest that increased gun crime is acutually to do with culture as opposed to the mere presence of guns?

And secondly, if I were to say 'illegally' under your laws acquire a handgun and happened to experience a break in during the early hours of the morning by two men wielding large knives, if I were to shoot them men dead - should I then be prosecuted under your gun laws?

[FlyingJesus]

Does this refer to the Second Amendment? again, no actual substance just vague and broad points.

What do you want done in the United States over gun rights? explain to me.

Are you genuinely suggesting that any practice put into law in one time and place ought to be accepted forever more despite changes in society and civilised standards? There were previously laws that allowed for the ownership of other human beings, the rape of any "unclaimed" landmass and the destruction of any and all opposition to a governor's creed. If you want to argue for the sanctity of these legal rights then go ahead, but you'll just make yourself look an even bigger fool. What I want done you know full well - restriction of gun carrying to include ONLY the carrier's property, as outside of that one has no right whatsoever to invoke terror through promise of violence.


Sounds like a self description to me.

NO YOU is such a good argument, well done


The logic of your side of the debate throughout has been, guns = kill people and are bad, so let's ban guns.

No it hasn't


Of which my response has been, why not ban other things which also result in high death rates?

To which the only response you lot have had has been "OMGZ BUT GUNZ R MENT TO KILL PEOPLE" - that's not an argument or logically consistent.

The fact that you are somehow either STILL unaware or merely unwilling to accept the fact (and yes it is fact, not opinion like the "facts" that you state while only being personal statements) that guns were invented, manufactured, and distributed purely for the purpose of destruction of other human life says to me that your bigotry isn't likely to end no matter how many times you're subjected to the real world. Sport on ones own private property I do not oppose, shooting at ones own feet for amusement I do not oppose, but gun ownership *+*IN PUBLIC PLACES*+* (I've put it in a way that you can't possibly miss now) I do oppose because (hey let's try that technique again) *+*GUNS OUTSIDE OF PRIVATE AREAS HAVE NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO KILL*+*. That is not to say that other things can't be used to harm others, and no-one has actually attempted to suggest that (but nice use of false equivalences and strawmanning) as literally nothing else that is legal in the Western world at this time has the sole property of harm. If you'd like to suggest an actual reason for why that isn't a valid and logical argument then please do try, but all you've said so far is "nope not true, I'm right"

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you genuinely suggesting that any practice put into law in one time and place ought to be accepted forever more despite changes in society and civilised standards? There were previously laws that allowed for the ownership of other human beings, the rape of any "unclaimed" landmass and the destruction of any and all opposition to a governor's creed. If you want to argue for the sanctity of these legal rights then go ahead, but you'll just make yourself look an even bigger fool. What I want done you know full well - restriction of gun carrying to include ONLY the carrier's property, as outside of that one has no right whatsoever to invoke terror through promise of violence.

When oppressive government has ended around the world (which it won't) then i'll consider binning off those sacred documents, until then they stand just as solid as they did back in their day. The US Constitution and the British constitution are timeless documents.

The United States is a constitutional republic and we are a constitutional monarchy, those protections are in place to protect us from the hysteria of the masses. The entire point in these documents is to defend against the tyranny of the majority (democracy) when it threatens the basic rights of the individual.


NO YOU is such a good argument, well done

If you're going to respond with 'UR ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH' then what else can I say? it's boring and has already been done.


No it hasn't

Yes it has, thats why we've had a thread posted everytime a gun goes off in a country with a population of 300 million people.


The fact that you are somehow either STILL unaware or merely unwilling to accept the fact (and yes it is fact, not opinion like the "facts" that you state while only being personal statements) that guns were invented, manufactured, and distributed purely for the purpose of destruction of other human life says to me that your bigotry isn't likely to end no matter how many times you're subjected to the real world.

Again, you ignore the logic. If you and your side of the debate (although now that you've clarified your position, as least your not on the hard end of it) feel that guns should be restricted or even banned because they kill human life in sporadic attacks - then I don't see why that logic isn't applied in a Daddy-knows-best manner to a whole host of other issues.

I accept there's a risk with guns, but it's a very small risk in terms of statistics - in the same way with salt, cars etc. But because guns are designed to kill (which I don't see makes a difference, surely people dying is the issue not the intent) somehow British people who probably haven't held a gun before have this strange phobia to guns..

It's entirely irrational in the grand scheme of things, yet because it's an emotional crime it's subject to OTT hostility.


Sport on ones own private property I do not oppose, shooting at ones own feet for amusement I do not oppose, but gun ownership *+*IN PUBLIC PLACES*+* (I've put it in a way that you can't possibly miss now) I do oppose because (hey let's try that technique again) *+*GUNS OUTSIDE OF PRIVATE AREAS HAVE NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO KILL*+*. That is not to say that other things can't be used to harm others, and no-one has actually attempted to suggest that (but nice use of false equivalences and strawmanning) as literally nothing else that is legal in the Western world at this time has the sole property of harm. If you'd like to suggest an actual reason for why that isn't a valid and logical argument then please do try, but all you've said so far is "nope not true, I'm right"

You say the purpose of a gun in a public place is to kill, so what about the many Americans who carry guns in their pocket/on their leg for the purpose of self defence? I don't see why you think making guns illegal in public will somehow stop madmen - because let's say it does (which you clearly believe) - then why not ban guns altogether and you'll solve gun violence overnight?

The logic doesn't add up.

[FlyingJesus]

Britain doesn't actually have a single written constitution, any A-level student knows that. As for considering a document to be infallible simply because of its age, that's simply hilarious. Slavery laws (as in laws issuing the rights of masters over slaves) existed for far longer than Britain has been a place, would you suggest that they are also "sacred" and "timeless"?

I haven't responded with "UR ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH" I've given reasons as to why I believe this to be the case - reasons which you have not responded to even now

MY argument is not that guns can kill and therefore should be banned - you are assuming that me opposing your ridiculous views means that I accept the views of all opposition, which is simply not the case

I still cannot fathom how you are unable to realise that there is a difference between widespread usage of items that are designed with only the destruction of life in mind and the availability (should one choose to indulge in it) of substances that may cause harm to the user. Look, once again I've emboldened the important clauses, but of course you'll totally ignore these as always and simply respond with "BUT I WANT SAFETY". Safety doesn't come from carrying a gun, since guns are offensive and not defensive. If you want to build yourself an armoured guard from unloaded firearms then go ahead, but that is a totally different issue, but unless that is your objective then you are not advocating for self-defense, you are advocating for outward attack.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Britain doesn't actually have a single written constitution, any A-level student knows that.

Where did I suggest it was a single written constitution? if you'd like me to list every constitutional document which make up our consitution then I will do so, but I would have thought anybody over A-Level would understand the documents i'm referring to when I say the British constitution.


As for considering a document to be infallible simply because of its age, that's simply hilarious. Slavery laws (as in laws issuing the rights of masters over slaves) existed for far longer than Britain has been a place, would you suggest that they are also "sacred" and "timeless"?

I never said mere age made them important, I stated that sensible barriers and protections to the individual are enshrined in the US constitution and the British constitution that are timeless in terms of protecting individual liberty.

Timeless in the sense that they are above the contemporary politics of the day.


I haven't responded with "UR ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH" I've given reasons as to why I believe this to be the case - reasons which you have not responded to even now

Point them out then, I can't for the life of me see anything you want me to address that I haven't already.


MY argument is not that guns can kill and therefore should be banned - you are assuming that me opposing your ridiculous views means that I accept the views of all opposition, which is simply not the case

Why are you pushing for more gun restrictions Tom? because guns kill/harm and your wanting to do something about it.

You still haven't replied to my point about public/private - if you want this restriction in place to save lives (why else would you want it?) then you must answer the point of, if this works, why not extend it to all property and we'd end gun violence overnight? A response is appreciated to this question rather than another accusation that i'm dodging any issues.


I still cannot fathom how you are unable to realise that there is a difference between widespread usage of items that are designed with only the destruction of life in mind and the availability (should one choose to indulge in it) of substances that may cause harm to the user. Look, once again I've emboldened the important clauses, but of course you'll totally ignore these as always and simply respond with "BUT I WANT SAFETY". Safety doesn't come from carrying a gun, since guns are offensive and not defensive. If you want to build yourself an armoured guard from unloaded firearms then go ahead, but that is a totally different issue, but unless that is your objective then you are not advocating for self-defense, you are advocating for outward attack.

Guns are defensive or offensive entirely on how you use them, just as heroin becomes offensive if you strap somebody down and drug them up every few days as people do with women in the sex 'industry'. If I am attacked in an alleyway and I whip out my hand gun and shoot the men attacking me dead, then that's a defensive act - not an offensive one.

The one who intiates the violence is the one at fault, not the one who responses with more power in self defence.

[peteyt]

I'm sorry, but drugs alter the brain - there have been many medical examples in the past where drugs have been considered perfectly safe and normal, and years later we discover the real effects they have on people. A nation addicted to mind bending drugs is not a healthy one, and the fact that most (if not all) of the mass murderer shootings are on these drugs certainly need investigating.

Yes drugs can effect the brain physically but so can guns in a mental way. I feel that the problem is Americans have been so used to guns being legal that it has in a sense corrupted their minds and they now can't see a world without them.




Oh for crying out loud, the constitution was written not for hunting rights or not even self defence - the reason why the second amendment was put into the constitution was that the Founding Fathers (many having come from tyrannies in Europe) wanted to make sure that a government would not be able to oppress its own people in the land of the free. You haven't done your homework and it shows.

I know why the constitution was written, never said it was actually written for self defence, I know it was written to protect the public from the government. My point is there are now lots of other stuff. Look at all the fuss with Libya. Other countries got involved trying to help the rebels. My point is when the constitution was wrote there wasn't all these things like the united nations, human right laws. Maybe the government could try and take over the country but they won't. It won't happen but people decide it will as an excuse to be allowed to keep guns.

My other point was that according to some online articles, the constitution can be amended and has been in the past. I'm no expert on it and I'm just saying what I have read. These articles have pointed that the constitution can be changed to fit with the times and that it isn't something that is set in stone forever, basically more of a basic idea. According to the articles online people don't accept this however because they hate to think of their gun rights been taking over.

Also your point about Obama being a hypocrite by having armed men. As someone pointed out if people prevented weapons from being distributed, revoking the gun law and taking down those smuggling weapons, then Obama wouldn't need to be protected.

But as I've said loads of times in one way or another, he isn't being a Hypocrite. America has missiles and other dangerous weapons, the main purpose to protect the country. Would you want normal members of the public to have access to these to? Obviously not because giving just anyone access to these weapons would be foolish and a massive risk. Now you can say well these weapons shouldn't exist, and why should the government have access to them but the people you support e.g. Ron Paul would have access to these weapons if he did get into power.

[FlyingJesus]

I never said mere age made them important, I stated that sensible barriers and protections to the individual are enshrined in the US constitution and the British constitution that are timeless in terms of protecting individual liberty.

Timeless in the sense that they are above the contemporary politics of the day.

This is once again just saying IT'S RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT AND YOU MUST NOT CHALLENGE IT. The word for that kind of attitude is bigotry.


Why are you pushing for more gun restrictions Tom? because guns kill/harm and your wanting to do something about it.

You still haven't replied to my point about public/private - if you want this restriction in place to save lives (why else would you want it?) then you must answer the point of, if this works, why not extend it to all property and we'd end gun violence overnight? A response is appreciated to this question rather than another accusation that i'm dodging any issues.

Woooooooooo more strawmanning. No that isn't the reason and the way you question the possibility of any other reason for wanting guns to be banned shows just how limited your thinking is. I don't want guns out in public because they are nothing more than tools of fear and oppression - AGAIN, look up violent gang culture and not just what the Daily Mail thinks it is. Also I'm not sure why you're attempting to suggest that private and public areas are essentially the same, especially considering your own views on property law. Limiting dangerous equipment to be used only on private property or specialist areas makes absolute sense, unless you also advocate for everyone carrying nuclear warheads coated in francium when they go out shopping, in which case there really is no hope for you.


Guns are defensive or offensive entirely on how you use them, just as heroin becomes offensive if you strap somebody down and drug them up every few days as people do with women in the sex 'industry'. If I am attacked in an alleyway and I whip out my hand gun and shoot the men attacking me dead, then that's a defensive act - not an offensive one.

The one who intiates the violence is the one at fault, not the one who responses with more power in self defence.

Not content with making baseless assumptions on just one topic at a time, Daniel moves on to showing his lack of knowledge about the sex industry and the effects of drugs.
Seriously that statement about heroin was hilarious. Partly because of how utterly wrong it was, but also because you STILL don't seem to understand the difference between something with harmful potential and something with harmful purpose. You also don't seem to understand the difference between offence and defence - as any martial artist will be able to tell you, the idea of self-defence is not to destroy your combatant but to cause them enough impediment for you to get away. If a kid throws a pebble at you and you respond by shooting them in the head with a carbine, that is absolutely not an appropriate way to deal with the matter.

[Kardan]

Can we use grenades as self defence?

[Ardemax]

So why did you say, and I quote;


"to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun."

Here you imply that your stated goal is for not one US citizen to own a gun, which you've now admitted to me is an unattainable goal when I asked you to name one country which has 100% of it's citizens/subjects disarmed. So therefore, your stance on this issue then is that Obama and government officials are entitled to armed protection forever (even though your supposed to be totally against guns) but this principle doesn't apply to the people?

And also, if Obama and co are entitled to armed protection - this in turn implies that non-government citizens still have possession of guns (ie, the criminal class). So the deal you are offering to the vast majority of the law abiding American public is; you have your guns removed, Obama/the political class and the criminals keep theirs.

Somehow I don't see that deal being taken up, do you?

I don't know if I'm implying that there should be a goal for no-one in America to own a firearms, I'm simply saying if there was ever a time where citizens had no guns then there wouldn't be the need for all these fancy body guards roaming around with Obama.

To your second point about Obama being allowed protection but ordinary people aren't... well I just don't know where to begin. I don't see Obama suddenly turning on American people and starting a massacre but I do see some American people turning on Obama if they had the chance, don't you?

What are American people so scared about that they feel that they have to own a firearm? Other American people with firearms?! Like I said, if firearms were banned outright from the start it would be like the situation over here in Britain: better.

To your third point,
"And also, if Obama and co are entitled to armed protection - this in turn implies that non-government citizens still have possession of guns (ie, the criminal class). So the deal you are offering to the vast majority of the law abiding American public is; you have your guns removed, Obama/the political class and the criminals keep theirs."

Let's take the Queen as an example. There are police who keep an eye on her situation when she tours around the world and country and they have guns. Would you say that our beloved, blue-blooded protector should ever risk her safety as a point of principal? I think we need to be realistic and acknowledge that a clamp down on guns will never ever work. But in countries where guns are illegal and ones where they are legal, I think the gun-related crime statistics speak for themselves.


You'd feel a lot safer if the only entity that had guns was the state? wow, do you need to read a history book my friend.

Or even take a look at events in Syria as we speak.

Last time I checked we're not in a country that is run by lunatics (though I'm sure you'd argue differently, but you get my point). We currently live in a country where the only "entity" that has guns is the state (bar a few exceptions with licences for hunting rifles etc.). And therefore I believe I am safer in this country where gun-related deaths per 100,000 per year is 0.25 compared with 10.2 in the US.

[dbgtz]

I don't post statistics/studies barely ever as most of them are made up, I post detailed arguments along with my own thoughts.


Yes because you just like to say it without actually backing it up. - http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768131&p=7797963#post7797963
So what about the statistics you do post with some source? Are they accurate because you chose them? What makes them so reliable and accurate? You go on about picking and choosing what things you can ban with drugs, guns, salt (lol) and all of that, but you seem to pick and choose which sources you deem to be accurate which, coincidentally, seem to be the sources which back up your evidence.




I'm not debating drugs, nor do I really want to - the evidence I have looked at in the past shows to me that they are dangerous and only a fool would touch them. I don't have a justify my stance as I only apply it to myself, i'd legalise drugs tommorow.


Show me said evidence then.

[FiftyCal]

I'm going to start carrying around my automatic AK-47 around in the public, i better be careful i might kill somebody!

[HC]

I think Guns should be banned.
If a madman ran to a crowd of people with a knife and stabbed people a lot could get away uninjured, But If that person had a machine gun... they could open fire on everyone around them - Even the ones fleeing!

[Jorders]

Plain and simple banning guns would mean less murders. Theres not much else to it really.
You know what I never hear, stories of people in the US shooting burglars dead. But the pro-gun supporters seem to base a lot of their argument off this scenario, but even if it does happen whats better? A dead burglar or a bunch of dead kids?

And to people who say that without guns the murderers and psychopaths would use other weapons, yeah they most likely would. But killing a bunch of people with a knife is a damn sight harder than walking into a school or cinema with a bunch of automatic or semi-automatic weapons and opening fire into a crowd of people.

Using a gun is so easy even kids can do it. Example: In the UK at age 14 I was taught to use bolt action rifles and single shot rifles whilst in the cadets. By the time I was 17 the single shot rifles had all been replaced with semi-automatic military grade assault rifles and 14 year olds were still taught how to use them and most learned it pretty quick. So in the US a 14 year old easily has the capacity to learn how to use and effectively use a semi-automatic assault rifle and could kill people with it. Could the same 14 year old kill a bunch of people with a knife? Probably not. (BTW: Semi-automatic = Every squeeze of the trigger fires a single shot)

One on one a knife wielding psycho has the capacity to kill. But I almost guarantee that there would be hardly any incidents along the lines of Sandy Hook Massacre BUT WITH A KNIFE BECAUSE THERES NO GUNS ANYMORE.