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

[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