14 people dead at Batman Film Premiere

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be quite honest I won't bother debating this point any further, it is really hard to tell what would have happened because it ultimately relies on the person. Someone may be shaking a lot, missing shots which then hit others, but then you could have someone who is in the military and takes him out with ease.

Of course it depends on circumstances, that is what i'm arguing - something which immediately nulls the argument that tighter gun laws would have prevented something like this happening, when in fact its likely these laws made the outcome even worse.

Well if you remove the source of guns, take as many as possible without infringing on human rights then they will slowly be eradicated. I mentioned earlier about this saying that I don't expect it to be an instant but at least the risk is then reduced.

So you think that if guns were banned tomorrow then in future there would be no more gun crime? absolute nonsense, criminals will always be able to smuggle in weapons whether we like it or not.

Gun laws only remove weapons from the law abiding and give the criminals a free reign.


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater

Regardless of what you think it is there for, it can still be amended.

Of course it can, it can also be ignored and trampled on - thus being the reason why the US has so many undeclared wars, unconstitutional government programs, a centralised federal government which the founders warned against, powerful political parties and so on.

The question isn't whether it can be abolished, amended or ignored - it ought to be followed as basic law.

[dbgtz]

Of course it depends on circumstances, that is what i'm arguing - something which immediately nulls the argument that tighter gun laws would have prevented something like this happening, when in fact its likely these laws made the outcome even worse.

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion when you just said agreed with me by saying it depends on the circumstance.

So you think that if guns were banned tomorrow then in future there would be no more gun crime? absolute nonsense, criminals will always be able to smuggle in weapons whether we like it or not.

No, hence my last sentence:

I mentioned earlier about this saying that I don't expect it to be an instant but at least the risk is then reduced.

But to the last point about smuggling, I agree, but surely that's a different matter to allowing them to each and every citizen.

Gun laws only remove weapons from the law abiding and give the criminals a free reign.

There are alternatives to guns.

Of course it can, it can also be ignored and trampled on - thus being the reason why the US has so many undeclared wars, unconstitutional government programs, a centralised federal government which the founders warned against, powerful political parties and so on.

The question isn't whether it can be abolished, amended or ignored - it ought to be followed as basic law.

Sorry but you seem to miss the point I was making. If it was amended, it would therefore become the law. You're basically saying that everything in the American constitution is perfect and should never be amended because it is a law which should be followed, which to be honest is stupid. It was drafted in the 18th(?) Century which would mean that parts of it will become outdated. Surely you should realise outdated principles should not be followed anymore.

[Stephen]

anyone who says that they should have been allowed to carry guns in the cinema to defend themselves are ******* idiots

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not really sure how you came to that conclusion when you just said agreed with me by saying it depends on the circumstance.

Because in your scenario (the one that occurred) you had one man with a gun vs an unarmed crowd. In my scenario, we'd have members of the audience armed meaning that the gunman would likely be outnumbered - thus meaning that the chances that he could kill up to 14 people would be rapidly depleted.

No, hence my last sentence:

What is this risk reduction nonsense we're subjected to? we could reduce the risk of many things such as banning fatty and salted foods (which kill more people than guns do), we could ban or restrict car speeds to 10mph (which kill more people than guns do) along with numerous other examples.

The fact of the matter is however, that when my house is broken into by a gun wielding criminal (who doesn't give a damn about the laws you've written, hence why he is on my property) then I am left unarmed and unprotected. And in a life and death situation for me and my family, that is unacceptable.

But to the last point about smuggling, I agree, but surely that's a different matter to allowing them to each and every citizen.

Indeed it is, because at the moment most criminals will be armed as will a great proportion of the population. Under your suggestions, the criminals would still have the guns (because they can buy them via smuggling) but the population would be unarmed.

How on earth does this make logical sense, it doesn't. It simply means that less deaths will result from thefts and beatings, because innocent people will be unable to protect themselves. Unacceptable again, as people have a right to protect themselves, their property and their family.

There are alternatives to guns.

Indeed there are, but when you're faced with a gun a knife or a baseball bat are pretty much useless. Now knowing criminals like we do, do you think criminals will also switch to baseball bats and knives in the interests of fair play? of course they won't.

Sorry but you seem to miss the point I was making. If it was amended, it would therefore become the law. You're basically saying that everything in the American constitution is perfect and should never be amended because it is a law which should be followed, which to be honest is stupid. It was drafted in the 18th(?) Century which would mean that parts of it will become outdated. Surely you should realise outdated principles should not be followed anymore.

It is perfect yes, just as our constitution is perfect - I don't trust the Republicans, Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens or even UKIP to change or amend a pair of historic constitutions which have worked fine for many centuries and continue to do so, despite arguments of flawed logic put against them (see your own argument above). I regard attempts to tamper with our basic laws as sinister to say the least and misguided at best.

Regarding the outdated issue - the US constitution actually didn't include gun rights because of the need to hunt or fish if you know your history, because back then if you didn't have a gun then you didn't eat. No, the gun rights were actually put in the US constitution to protect the citizens against the government.

In very much the same way Switzerland has historic gun rights, to arm the population against invading foreign governments.

[FlyingJesus]

.. as for the post earlier which listed firearm deaths in the US, I could also produce similar (and indeed higher numbers) for the US and the UK concerning knife crime, club/pub deaths from glass bottles and even motorway accidents - yet would be consider banning or regulating any of these?

Carrying knives in public is illegal, and lots of things could potentially be used as weapons despite their primary function (glass bottles, cars) but guns only serve one function unless you're going to pretend to want one in case you forget your key and have to shoot the lock

[GirlNextDoor15]

Take a look at the table in this link and you'll know you whole ******* debate is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
It should neither be legalized nor banned. Hong kong has the lowest homicide rate with firearms and guns are banned there while on the other hand, Colombia has the highest rate and guns are legalized. However, Zimbabwe is ranked fourth with 66% homicides with firearms and guns are banned there. So, it varies according to different countries and what differentiates them in my opinion is their culture and education. The gun culture, how they are brought up and how educated they are about weapons.
Education is always the most important element in one's society. Without the right education, one will fail to know what's right and what's wrong.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Carrying knives in public is illegal, and lots of things could potentially be used as weapons despite their primary function (glass bottles, cars) but guns only serve one function unless you're going to pretend to want one in case you forget your key and have to shoot the lock

Of course it is, and gun laws would/do make carrying guns illegal - yet gun and knife crime still occur, by the wicked having an advantage over the good. The function of a gun isn't at question, advocates of gun controls say that guns ought to be banned to prevent killings - yet exclude other things which cause more death and destruction such as glass bottles in clubs, knives and so on.

The argument is similar to the nuclear weapons debate in that guns and nuclear weapons exist and will always exist, the question is - is it better for just your enemy to be armed or is it better for both of you to be armed? And the answer of course is that at least when both are armed, you stand a chance.

The Swiss have perfectly fine good gun laws (very lax) that the US and UK should emulate; http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

Take a look at the table in this link and you'll know you whole ******* debate is flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
It should neither be legalized nor banned. Hong kong has the lowest homicide rate with firearms and guns are banned there while on the other hand, Colombia has the highest rate and guns are legalized. However, Zimbabwe is ranked fourth with 66% homicides with firearms and guns are banned there. So, it varies according to different countries and what differentiates them in my opinion is their culture and education. The gun culture, how they are brought up and how educated they are about weapons.
Education is always the most important element in one's society. Without the right education, one will fail to know what's right and what's wrong.

Excellent point, much of it depends on how successful a justice system is as well as the moral values of a country. For that reason and the reason of liberty and self defence, i'd have them legalised - but of course that doesn't mean people have to have a gun, if they disagree they simply don't have to buy one.

The same goes for drug laws - I think drugs are incredibly dangerous and immoral, yet whether people choose to take them is not my business.

[SackRace]

So sad that a baby died too, R.I.P to all of them.

[GommeInc]

The Swiss have perfectly fine good gun laws (very lax) that the US and UK should emulate; http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

The many, many years of imbreeding both the US and UK have gone through means we will never be able to emulate Swiss gun laws. We're just too thick, and the US seem to think violence is the answer if their constitution (the right to bare arms) is anything to go by. There is simply no good in owning a gun, and the obvious flaw in the constitution for when the Government becomes out of hand is that the Government could pound the crap out of its citizens given how advanced the military is and the weaponry they have which far beats the shoddy hand-gun, shotgun or machine gun any US citizen can get their hands on. It's a part of their constitution which has never made sense since day one.

There is simply no need to own a gun (other than to shoot locks out, like @FlyingJesus suggests, or to get your own food like the odd mouse, sparrow or pigeon).

[-:Undertaker:-]

The many, many years of imbreeding both the US and UK have gone through means we will never be able to emulate Swiss gun laws. We're just too thick, and the US seem to think violence is the answer if their constitution (the right to bare arms) is anything to go by. There is simply no good in owning a gun, and the obvious flaw in the constitution for when the Government becomes out of hand is that the Government could pound the crap out of its citizens given how advanced the military is and the weaponry they have which far beats the shoddy hand-gun, shotgun or machine gun any US citizen can get their hands on. It's a part of their constitution which has never made sense since day one.

It did make sense, a government can have all of the bombs and tanks it wants - but can it beat a population who all own guns? no, they're simply outnumbered. The American and Swiss examples of gun rights have prevented both tyrants and foreign governments essentially declaring dictatorships overrnight. As the Libertarian groups on Facebook point out - is it any wonder that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao all banned guns? a population that is armed equals a population who are assured their rights as sometimes you need bullets to back up bits of paper.

Our constitution, the US Constitution and the Swiss constitutional system (all when followed) are the best in the world, hands down and they do not need to be tampered with by governments which are determined to remove our freedoms; from gun rights to free speech, to devolution/states rights and the Monarchy/limits of Presidential power.

There is simply no need to own a gun (other than to shoot locks out, like @FlyingJesus suggests, or to get your own food like the odd mouse, sparrow or pigeon).

Er yes there is, self defence - the entire purpose of owning a gun is self defence. Therefore the idea that guns 'have no purpose' is complete nonsense. If you don't want to be protected against gun wielding criminals then thats entirely your choice, but if I do wish to protect myself and my family with a gun then i'm entirely right to do so. Indeed, you could even say its basic common sense.

I saw the comparison today of maybe we should ban spoons as spoons also kill people (more infact) due to unhealthy eating. Spoons and guns do not kill people, only a person can do that.