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

[Catchy]

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

Another straw man argument blasted apart, anymore?

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Catchy]

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

[FlyingJesus]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

Why thank you.

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

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

[nvrspk4]

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

[GommeInc]

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

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

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

[nvrspk4]

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

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

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