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

[Invent]

Absolutely not.

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

[FiftyCal]

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

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

[santa-my-nana]

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

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

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

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

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

[peteyt]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well drink driving is already banned,

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

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

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

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

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

Some "accidents that have happened" all due to guns

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Catchy]

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



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

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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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

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



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

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

[Empired]

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

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Catchy]

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



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



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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

Another straw man argument blasted apart, anymore?