Should Guns be made Illegal [Archive]

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:24 PM

The rate of gun related homicide doesn't bother me. The simple truth is this: If the bad guys want guns, they will get the guns.

Yes, it will be harder. No, it will not stop it.
Furthermore, if you take away the gun other related crimes will rise. Knives, baseball bats, kitchen appliances. If someone wants you dead, they will use any means to kill you.

All it will really do is force the good, honest citizens to turn in their primary form of self defense against home invaders and assault. Women carry handguns to protect themselves against assailants. Men keep guns of various kinds in their homes to protect from intruders.

And if nothing else, it is our constitutional right to bear arms. You can not take away our constitutional rights. If nothing else, that right allows us to protect ourselves from evil- foreign or domestic.

Unfortunately the things that you speak of "they will use any means to kill you" really is an American thing. Like I said in previous posts, violence is almost non-existent in some other countries (most Asian Countries that are modern) therefore we need to change our entire culture to be like that.

If we do not, we will keep falling behind Asia just like we are now. Their education, overall intelligence level, and productivity has surpassed us now for years. Eventually the US will be worthless if we stay like we currently are with this harsh violent attitude that is the complete opposite of progressive.

Thats amazing! Good Job South Korea! Now, I forgot... Are we South Korea?

No we are not and that is the issue. We need to change our culture to be like South Korea by enacting their same type of laws regarding schooling, weapons, etc.

If you live in South Korea you have a 55% higher chance of being employed, 80% less chance of aids or hiv, consume 30% less oil, and save 79% on health care.

Just to name a few of the things they are doing right, and we are not.

Merged Double Posts. ~StoppingTime

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 08:30 PM

Unfortunately the things that you speak of "they will use any means to kill you" really is an American thing. Like I said in previous posts, violence is almost non-existent in some other countries (most Asian Countries that are modern) therefore we need to change our entire culture to be like that.

If we do not, we will keep falling behind Asia just like we are now. Their education, overall intelligence level, and productivity has surpassed us now for years. Eventually the US will be worthless if we stay like we currently are with this harsh violent attitude that is the complete opposite of progressive.

Unfortunately, our whole culture was founded on violent revolts. It really kind of is an integral part to our fucked society. I doubt I'll ever be in favor of removing guns from a country whose government continues to overstep their bounds.

FrostWraith

July 7th, 2013, 08:32 PM

Unfortunately the things that you speak of "they will use any means to kill you" really is an American thing. Like I said in previous posts, violence is almost non-existent in some other countries (most Asian Countries that are modern) therefore we need to change our entire culture to be like that.

If we do not, we will keep falling behind Asia just like we are now. Their education, overall intelligence level, and productivity has surpassed us now for years. Eventually the US will be worthless if we stay like we currently are with this harsh violent attitude that is the complete opposite of progressive.

That has nothing to do with violence; it relates more to higher taxes and the government choosing to invest in education and technology. America has always had a culture of freedom relative to other countries; while it may have some detriment to the general welfare, freedom in and of itself has value that I think a lot of other countries disregard.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:32 PM

Unfortunately, our whole culture was founded on violent revolts. It really kind of is an integral part to our fucked society. I doubt I'll ever be in favor of removing guns from a country whose government continues to overstep their bounds.

Ya, I agree that we need to protect ourselves against our fucked up Government but it will not be through the use of Guns.

In all reality, if something really bad happened and we need to revolt. I do not think that the everyday person with the Gun would win against the United States military, when it is capable of destroying any country in the World.

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 08:34 PM

there really isn't a right way to do something... and just becasue something works for Them... that doesnt mean it will work here! Sure go ahead and make guns illegal... then what do you get? Pissed off people with guns rebelling because Its a bullshit law

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:34 PM

That has nothing to do with violence; it relates more to higher taxes and the government choosing to invest in education and technology. America has always had a culture of freedom relative to other countries; while it may have some detriment to the general welfare, freedom in and of itself has value that I think a lot of other countries disregard.

Are you saying that freedom = violence. South Korea is more "free" than the US is. They are actually more Democratic than we are, so that argument doesn't really stand, at least in this comparison.

there really isn't a right way to do something... and just becasue something works for Them... that doesnt mean it will work here! Sure go ahead and make guns illegal... then what do you get? Pissed off people with guns rebelling because Its a bullshit law

Why would it be a bullshit law though, that is the point. What are guns truly good for?

Merged Double Posts. ~StoppingTime

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 08:36 PM

Ya, I agree that we need to protect ourselves against our fucked up Government but it will not be through the use of Guns.

In all reality, if something really bad happened and we need to revolt. I do not think that the everyday person with the Gun would win against the United States military, when it is capable of destroying any country in the World.

And neither will asking them to politely bend over and take it.

Guns might not win, but I promise you it would make a revolt far more significant. Try revolting as an unarmed group, the government won't really give a damn.

jayjay's toocool

July 7th, 2013, 08:36 PM

The right to bear arms is legal and an amendment so no I don't think they should be illegal, BUT at the same time I would say they need something...something to hold people who shouldn't be able to use it not be able to use it. but more than that I guess more so something we can call barring arms, and can certainly offer the same security as guns but not the same risks ..... hmm

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:38 PM

And neither will asking them to politely bend over and take it.

Guns might not when, but I promise you it would make a revolt far more significant. Try revolting as an unarmed group, the government won't really give a damn.

No rebellion would make a difference in that way, the only way to make a difference in the US now is to change where you spend your money. Or have everyone (or most people) stop paying Taxes.

A Physical revolt would do less than those two things. And also, it is highly unlikely that people in the US would ever actually revolt. So at this point, working towards a non-violent society makes a lot of sense or else the US won't matter at all 50-100 years from now.

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 08:39 PM

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:42 PM

Defense... Outlaw guns... That only leaves A SHIT TON of things people can be killed with...

If you're going to outlaw guns... Might as well Outlaw cars too...

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

CARS KILLED MORE PEOPLE! So it makes sense riiight?!?!? Lets get rid of cars!!! We can fucking walk everywhere!!! We have legs!!! lets use them!!!

There is a difference between an intentional death and an accident. So that comparison doesn't mean anything.

And the only reason people would use other weapons is because of how in-grained violence is. Guns are the major source of that violence however, so it is a step in the right direction. If we got rid of them, we could be a peaceful country like the countries that are now worthwhile in the World within 50-100 years.

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 08:44 PM

No rebellion would make a difference in that way, the only way to make a difference in the US now is to change where you spend your money. Or have everyone (or most people) stop paying Taxes.

A Physical revolt would do less than those two things. And also, it is highly unlikely that people in the US would ever actually revolt. So at this point, working towards a non-violent society makes a lot of sense or else the US won't matter at all 50-100 years from now.

You think either would make such a significant impact? Against a non-violent group, they can just start restricting various things (along with creating any law they want to justify it) until the counter group is crippled. A nonviolent revolt doesn't solve anything or make any impact on a nation.

And you obviously don't know the deep south then if you believe America wouldn't revolt. Look at the cities with strict gun control laws - there crime rates either remained unaffected or increased.

Southside

July 7th, 2013, 08:53 PM

Here's a number one reason why it wouldn't matter if guns were illegal...

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America yet 500+ killed last year in gunfire, thousands more wounded. Handguns(what most shootings are committed with) are even illegal, but here are the statistics

Just in the last week I believe 60 something people have been shot here in Chicago. It doesn't matter, criminals are still going to shoot, they truly don't give a fuck.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/15-Shot-As-Holiday-Weekend-Begins-214275491.html

You never see this on the news, all the victims are black or Hispanic so it doesn't matter much in the media's mind

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 08:53 PM

There is a difference between an intentional death and an accident. So that comparison doesn't mean anything.

And the only reason people would use other weapons is because of how in-grained violence is. Guns are the major source of that violence however, so it is a step in the right direction. If we got rid of them, we could be a peaceful country like the countries that are now worthwhile in the World within 50-100 years.

That comparison does mean something! Numbers mean nothing! So what! Guns are the major source of murder... But that doesn't mean people that own guns are just going to say, here, take my gun its illegal, HA, Getting rid of guns would mean getting rid of what is probably the most trace-able murder weapon and allowing people to move to stabbing, vehicular slaughter, poisoning. Murders happen for a reason! Its is rare that someone shoots another person because "They felt like it." Outlawing guns would just mean that the guy that uses a handgun to murder someone and take their money will just have to use a different way of murdering someone!

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:56 PM

You think either would make such a significant impact? Against a non-violent group, they can just start restricting various things (along with creating any law they want to justify it) until the counter group is crippled. A nonviolent revolt doesn't solve anything or make any impact on a nation.

And you obviously don't know the deep south then if you believe America wouldn't revolt. Look at the cities with strict gun control laws - there crime rates either remained unaffected or increased.

Because individual cities cannot just change gun laws for violence to go away, it has to be a federal things because guns are still really easy to purchase online or in another state.

Also, I'm not sure that you are correct that the violence remains the same. This is from a study from the Boston Children's Hospital:

"States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower."

40% lower is a big difference. And the reason I do not think that people would actually revolt is because when things like the "Restore the 4th" protests occur only a few people show up.

The Restore the Fourth protests occurred just a few days ago to fight Government intrusion of Privacy (which people in the South [Republicans mainly] do hate) and yet the South had horribly low turnouts, with only a handful of people coming out to the major cities in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc.

That comparison does mean something! Numbers mean nothing! So what! Guns are the major source of murder... But that doesn't mean people that own guns are just going to say, here, take my gun its illegal, HA, Getting rid of guns would mean getting rid of what is probably the most trace-able murder weapon and allowing people to move to stabbing, vehicular slaughter, poisoning. Murders happen for a reason! Its is rare that someone shoots another person because "They felt like it." Outlawing guns would just mean that the guy that uses a handgun to murder someone and take their money will just have to use a different way of murdering someone!

Again like I have already said, it is about changing the entire culture. When you look at countries with almost no guns, they are NOT turning to other weapons to kill people even if knives and vehicles and poisons are still accessible. It is because they are peaceful and progressive, when America is violent and backwards.

Merged.

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 08:58 PM

Because individual cities cannot just change gun laws for violence to go away, it has to be a federal things because guns are still really easy to purchase online or in another state.

Also, I'm not sure that you are correct that the violence remains the same. This is from a study from the Boston Children's Hospital:

"States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower."

40% lower is a big difference. And the reason I do not think that people would actually revolt is because when things like the "Restore the 4th" protests occur only a few people show up.

The Restore the Fourth protests occurred just a few days ago to fight Government intrusion of Privacy (which people in the South [Republicans mainly] do hate) and yet the South had horribly low turnouts, with only a handful of people coming out to the major cities in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc.

Mortality rate = Death
Homicide = Murder = Death
Suicide = Death
Death =/= Crime

Recheck what you're posting.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 08:59 PM

Mortality rate = Death
Homicide = Murder = Death
Suicide = Death
Death =/= Crime

Recheck what you're posting.

It is still an indicator, there is obviously a connection between crime and death, say 2:1

So if death is less frequent, so is crime.

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 09:02 PM

It is still an indicator, there is obviously a connection between crime and death, say 2:1

So if death is less frequent, so is crime.

"If death is less frequent, so is crime."

Seriously, what are you smoking?

The only crime that relates to death is homicide which is completely achievable with nothing more than one's own fists. So death does not necessarily correlate to crime.

If fewer people are dying, it doesn't mean theft, rape, assault, etc decrease.
---
Taking guns won't make us less violent. It will encourage those who still own them to commit crime against unarmed victims. You don't have to disarm your citizens to make then non-violent.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 09:07 PM

"If death is less frequent, so is crime."

Seriously, what are you smoking?

The only crime that relates to death is homicide which is completely achievable with nothing more than one's own fists. So death does not necessarily correlate to crime.

If fewer people are dying, it doesn't mean theft, rape, assault, etc decrease.
---
Taking guns won't make us less violent. It will encourage those who still own them to commit crime against unarmed victims. You don't have to disarm your citizens to make then non-violent.

Well if they are non-violent, then why do they need guns?

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 09:10 PM

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 09:16 PM

Look at it this way, even your beloved South Korea does not have 100% peaceful citizens. Those few who aren't peaceful are still a threat to those who are.

I don't jump to hurting people. I prefer talking things out; however, if someone breaks into my house with intent to harm my family or I they will not leave alive. If they have the ability to arm themselves with a gun (criminals don't obey your petty illegal gun laws) then I expect that same ability to defend myself. A criminal with a shotgun against my petty kitchen knife is an unfair match up.

Again, it is a US issue though. Of course there is not completely crime free there, but it is around 85% safer than in the United States.

While you would not think that criminals would obey gun laws, there is no issue with them being illegally imported into SK. So, after decades without guns, they would become less of an issue in the US as well.

It simply should not be something that we just give up on because it has been in society for too long.

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 09:24 PM

Again, it is a US issue though. Of course there is not completely crime free there, but it is around 85% safer than in the United States.

While you would not think that criminals would obey gun laws, there is no issue with them being illegally imported into SK. So, after decades without guns, they would become less of an issue in the US as well.

It simply should not be something that we just give up on because it has been in society for too long.

You really are blind.

You open this thread comparing SK to the US. So don't say "it's a US issue." Too late for that. And 85% safer =/= 100% safe. Means I'm still in danger as an individual.

Of course illegal imports are hard to SK! They don't have any god damn neighbors. They're only connected by land to NK for fuck's sake. Come on! We have Mexico and Canada neighboring us by land! Illegal imports would be a huge problem!

You really weren't raised with much interest in personal defense, were you?

StoppingTime

July 7th, 2013, 09:24 PM

Alright, from what I have seen with other threads that mention guns, many people are really emotional about the topic and I understand that.

As if you don't "get emotional" with other topics. Don't speak down to people here.

With all of the evidence showing that making guns hard to attain does indeed lower gun crime rates in a big way, should they be made illegal?

Is that the only evidence?

The US has the highest gun ownership in the World

According to a 2007 study, 94.3/100 Americans own a gun. Yes, you're right, but please cite sources (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf)

Hundreds of people die simply from accidental gun discharges

139 people were severely injured by falling onto subway tracks on the New York MTA Subways, 54 were killed. (http://www.businessinsider.com/mta-wont-build-costly-subway-barriers-2013-1)
Now add a few hundred (if not more) to cover the US. Shall we spend millions building walls around the tracks? There are a lot of things that are useful, but killers at the same time. We can't just go outlawing things that kill people left and right.

Strict laws against guns in countries like Japan have led to gun crime being almost non-existent

It does exist, though. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/asia/19japan.html?_r=0) Also, it's not only because they have very strict gun policies.

Therefore, should we go down the same path in order to stop this senseless violence present in America. Of course there would be a lot of road-bumps with this process since so many people are literally "in love" with their Guns and would die protecting them.

Are people literally "in love" with them? Some people (http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/14/poll-why-americans-own-guns/) (approximately 48% but I'm sure there's a margin for error, as it's a poll) own guns strictly for their own personal safety. I'm not sure how that'd constitute as "in love" with. More people own guns for protection than for hunting, the source above states.

But, if we made guns illegal, slowly but surely the crime rates would indeed go down quite a bit. Also, the entire "gun culture" that is in the US whether it be in the form of Hunting, Gangs, Police, Media, etc, the US is practically addicted to Guns and Violence as a whole.

What do you have to prove this? Sure you can compare America to other countries, but keep in mind the US isn't other countries. The people, culture, and ideals are different than that of Japan, for example. So simply stating "banning guns will decrease crime because that happened in X country" doesn't work. You need to look at more factors.

So what do you think? Should Guns finally just be made illegal, like they are in much more peaceful countries.

No, I think there should simply be a much stricter policy on how to get one, training on how to use one, etc.

Like I said in the OP, that is because we have a culture of Violence.

"Like you said." Now source it.

I am friends with people that live in South Korea and they have never seen or heard of anyone getting hurt in the streets or of anyone walking around with a weapon.

It would be a long process, but returning to a peaceful state like South Korea, would be immensely beneficial.

Does that mean that if the US outlaws firearms, we will be just like them?

There is a 91% safety rate in South Korea for people walking around at night (even in Seoul which has millions of people in it.) It is somewhere around 10% in the US.

lolololol okay. First, define "safety rate." Then, you need to be less broad. I live in a very small town in the middle of nowhere - it's quite safe for me to walk around at night. Sure I wouldn't want to, but it's not New York City. You need to take data from specific places, not as a whole, as that doesn't work.

Unfortunately the things that you speak of "they will use any means to kill you" really is an American thing. Like I said in previous posts, violence is almost non-existent in some other countries (most Asian Countries that are modern) therefore we need to change our entire culture to be like that.

No country willingly "changes culture" in the blink of an eye.

If we do not, we will keep falling behind Asia just like we are now. Their education, overall intelligence level, and productivity has surpassed us now for years.

Are you comparing gun violence to US school systems, and then comparing that to other countries? Wow.

Eventually the US will be worthless if we stay like we currently are with this harsh violent attitude that is the complete opposite of progressive.

How is it the opposite?

We need to change our culture to be like South Korea by enacting their same type of laws regarding schooling, weapons, etc.

If you live in South Korea you have a 55% higher chance of being employed, 80% less chance of aids or hiv, consume 30% less oil, and save 79% on health care.

Just to name a few of the things they are doing right, and we are not.

Banning firearms isn't going to turn this country around. Sure it may do something to crime rates, but it will not help us consume less oil, etc. If you'd like to debate America's "flawed" culture, don't mix it into this debate, as the two are different.

Ya, I agree that we need to protect ourselves against our fucked up Government but it will not be through the use of Guns.

......I don't even know. Are government officials pounding on your doors and dragging you off? I'm not entirely sure what this means.

In all reality, if something really bad happened and we need to revolt. I do not think that the everyday person with the Gun would win against the United States military, when it is capable of destroying any country in the World.

This was contradictory.
>What if we need to revolt
>Well we can't use guns because people aren't as strong as the government we're revolting against so why bother.
>Throw in random "fact" about the military.

Are you saying that freedom = violence. South Korea is more "free" than the US is. They are actually more Democratic than we are, so that argument doesn't really stand, at least in this comparison.

"more democratic"
Democracy isn't always the way to freedom, in fact it rarely is.

Why would it be a bullshit law though, that is the point. What are guns truly good for?

Let's go with personal protection.

No rebellion would make a difference in that way, the only way to make a difference in the US now is to change where you spend your money. Or have everyone (or most people) stop paying Taxes.

Yes let's stop paying taxes. This will help America!!!111oneoneone!!!111

A Physical revolt would do less than those two things. And also, it is highly unlikely that people in the US would ever actually revolt. So at this point, working towards a non-violent society makes a lot of sense or else the US won't matter at all 50-100 years from now.

What does this have anything to do with banning firearms.

And the only reason people would use other weapons is because of how in-grained violence is. Guns are the major source of that violence however, so it is a step in the right direction. If we got rid of them, we could be a peaceful country like the countries that are now worthwhile in the World within 50-100 years.

Right, until people find something else to kill others with. Or better yet they'll just illegally get a hold of firearms. It's not as simple as "let's be like that country."

tl;dr We can't ban guns simply because other countries did and it lowers crime rate.

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 09:29 PM

Oh look, it's this thread again.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 09:48 PM

As if you don't "get emotional" with other topics. Don't speak down to people here.

Stop trying to make something more out of things I post. That was not a condescending thing at all, and when anything it in-grained in Society, I understand why they get emotional about it.

139 people were severely injured by falling onto subway tracks on the New York MTA Subways, 54 were killed. (http://www.businessinsider.com/mta-wont-build-costly-subway-barriers-2013-1)
Now add a few hundred (if not more) to cover the US. Shall we spend millions building walls around the tracks? There are a lot of things that are useful, but killers at the same time. We can't just go outlawing things that kill people left and right.

There is a big difference between completely accidental things and things that are not. People accidentally being killed with guns is not 100% an accident as it is normally due to a lack of training or the guns not being kept in a safe place (a kid is likely to find it.)

It does exist, though. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/asia/19japan.html?_r=0) Also, it's not only because they have very strict gun policies.

Of course it does exist, I do not think Japan or South Korea are any sort of paradise. But when places like Japan, SK, Norway, Spain, Australia, Sweden, etc, all have drastically lower gun death and crime rates, then I think we should look at all those countries to find out what they share and why we are different.

The only countries with higher gun death rates than the US are Nicaragua, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Colombia, Swaziland, Jamaica, El Salvador and Honduras.

Are people literally "in love" with them? Some people (http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/14/poll-why-americans-own-guns/) (approximately 48% but I'm sure there's a margin for error, as it's a poll) own guns strictly for their own personal safety. I'm not sure how that'd constitute as "in love" with. More people own guns for protection than for hunting, the source above states.

Yes that is true, it is around 45% for protection and 35% for hunting. And I do think that some people may be in love with them, and if not, that is at least the terminology that most people use when talking about people that like guns.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/16/after-sandy-hook-gun-control-and-the-south.html
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/explaining-americas-love-of-guns-to-british-people

What do you have to prove this? Sure you can compare America to other countries, but keep in mind the US isn't other countries. The people, culture, and ideals are different than that of Japan, for example. So simply stating "banning guns will decrease crime because that happened in X country" doesn't work. You need to look at more factors.

Yes, the culture is different. But it is more than just Asian countries, practically all European countries are just as low in gun crime/death as Japan and SK. Sure, their culture is still different but it is closer to the USA.

Cultures will always be different with this comparison but we should start trying to transition to a culture that is more like Norway or Sweden or Greece or South Korea or Japan.

No, I think there should simply be a much stricter policy on how to get one, training on how to use one, etc.

At the least, yes I agree. At least that would definitely bring down the amount of accidental gun deaths.

Does that mean that if the US outlaws firearms, we will be just like them?

No, it requires a whole culture change. But a symbol of violence like the Gun is where most other countries started their change and it seems like a good place for us to do the same.

lolololol okay. First, define "safety rate." Then, you need to be less broad. I live in a very small town in the middle of nowhere - it's quite safe for me to walk around at night. Sure I wouldn't want to, but it's not New York City. You need to take data from specific places, not as a whole, as that doesn't work.

It means how likely someone is to be affected by crime at night when walking around. They compared the busiest city in America and the busiest city in South Korea (Seoul, which is actually far more packed and busy than any single place in the USA, especially at night.)

No country willingly "changes culture" in the blink of an eye.

It definitely would not be fast like I said earlier, it could take 50-100 years to have a mass culture change regarding violence as a whole and guns.

Are you comparing gun violence to US school systems, and then comparing that to other countries? Wow.

The most recent study which looked to see if there was a connection between gun crime and gun laws found that the contributing factors were less related to local gun laws but instead one of the highest factors was indeed education. College graduates had the most significant lowering of gun violence and crime.

A more educated population would then have an impact on gun violence.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Gun-ViolenceEDIT-thumb-600x600-40178.jpg

As you can see, college grads had the most effect on lowering gun crime.

Yes let's stop paying taxes. This will help America!!!111oneoneone!!!111

If people needed to revolt, yes, that would be the best way. Cutting off money to the Government would greatly hurt it.

You really are blind.

You open this thread comparing SK to the US. So don't say "it's a US issue." Too late for that. And 85% safer =/= 100% safe. Means I'm still in danger as an individual.

Of course illegal imports are hard to SK! They don't have any god damn neighbors. They're only connected by land to NK for fuck's sake. Come on! We have Mexico and Canada neighboring us by land! Illegal imports would be a huge problem!

You really weren't raised with much interest in personal defense, were you?

Yes I was raised around a lot of people that care about personal defense since practically every male in my family has been a Police Officer or has been in the Army.

Double Post Merged~ Red Velvet

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 09:51 PM

Yes I was raised around a lot of people that care about personal defense since practically every male in my family has been a Police Officer or has been in the Army.

And clearly you don't care for other people's own personal defense mechanisms. Banning guns doesn't solve the problem.

If you love South Korea so much, just move there. God damn.

Jakers61

July 7th, 2013, 09:52 PM

You need to realize here that not only are guns for sports, protection and blah blah blah. Guns are for protection from the government. I GUARANTEE that if they were completely banned and illegal that no one that has a gun would comply. Our government would be overthrown and the country would go to shit.(more shit than we're already in) it would never work and crime rates would never go down because of it.

Origami

July 7th, 2013, 09:56 PM

There is a big difference between completely accidental things and things that are not. People accidentally being killed with guns is not 100% an accident as it is normally due to a lack of training or the guns not being kept in a safe place (a kid is likely to find it.)

Guess what! This is why MOST gun activists encourage a required gun safety course for people wishing to purchase a firearm!

But regardless, ignorance doesn't mean it isn't still a completely accidental occurrence. To say otherwise is ridiculous. I'm done with this thread.

Yes I was raised around a lot of people that care about personal defense since practically every male in my family has been a Police Officer or has been in the Army.

Cool story. Welcome to my family. Feel free to reply to the rest of that there post of mine.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 10:01 PM

And clearly you don't care for other people's own personal defense mechanisms. Banning guns doesn't solve the problem.

If you love South Korea so much, just move there. God damn.

You need to realize here that not only are guns for sports, protection and blah blah blah. Guns are for protection from the government. I GUARANTEE that if they were completely banned and illegal that no one that has a gun would comply. Our government would be overthrown and the country would go to shit.(more shit than we're already in) it would never work and crime rates would never go down because of it.

Just like I said earlier, no amount of guns in the US is going to result in protection from the Government. The only way to protest the Government is through changing where our money goes. That's it!

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 10:03 PM

Just like I said earlier, no amount of guns in the US is going to result in protection from the Government. The only way to protest the Government is through changing where our money goes. That's it!

http://i.imgur.com/OgKztZZ.jpg

You see that kid on the right? That's you.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 10:05 PM

image (http://i.imgur.com/OgKztZZ.jpg)

You see that kid on the right? That's you.

Cool, and also immature. Whether getting rid of them does anything... LIKING guns and WANTING them is completely backwards and that is true no matter what.

No wonder that there are around ten countries that are now better than the US and none of them care about guns at all anymore. The US is stuck in the past on way too many things.

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 10:08 PM

Cool, and also immature.

Maybe if you didn't talk down to people, you wouldn't get such replies. :rolleyes:

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 10:09 PM

Cool, and also immature. Whether getting rid of them does anything... LIKING guns and WANTING them is completely backwards and that is true no matter what.

No wonder that there are around ten countries that are now better than the US and none of them care about guns at all anymore. The US is stuck in the past on way too many things.

Tell me about it... History class, I was like... Why do I need to know about a bunch of old men that gave me the freedom to make topics like this and not be executed!?? I mean thats the past! It didn't drastically change the future or anything...

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 10:11 PM

Maybe if you didn't talk down to people, you wouldn't get such replies. :rolleyes:

How did I talk down to anybody?

Tell me about it... History class, I was like... Why do I need to know about a bunch of old men that gave me the freedom to make topics like this and not be executed!?? I mean thats the past! It didn't drastically change the future or anything...

Of course it changed the future, although the Founding Fathers would hate the US in its current state.

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 10:14 PM

How did I talk down to anybody?

Your condescending air in all your posts likes to suggest that you know it all.

Capto

July 7th, 2013, 10:14 PM

Someone said something about a culture transition.

That was amusing.

But don't read this post, continue with this argument. I like it.

Just for my input so this isn't off-topic, the US of A is unique in this problem. Trying to compare our firearms situation to South Korea's or Japan's is laughable.

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 10:15 PM

How did I talk down to anybody?

Of course it changed the future, although the Founding Fathers would hate the US in its current state.

Ahh yes... So you know this for a fact? You know I'll take your word for it! I mean you obviously have some sort of way to communicate with people that are dead. Now granted I don't know if its like... Crystal ball, or You just see dead people and can talk to 'em, or hell even that whole Ouigi Board thing. But next time you see Hitler will you try to get his autograph for me?

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 10:21 PM

Your condescending air in all your posts likes to suggest that you know it all.

Well, that "condescending" tone or whatever it may be, is not something that I intend to have in any of my posts. It is just the way that I write and talk. Going forward, do not take it personally because I do not feel as though I am better than any of you.

Ahh yes... So you know this for a fact? You know I'll take your word for it! I mean you obviously have some sort of way to communicate with people that are dead. Now granted I don't know if its like... Crystal ball, or You just see dead people and can talk to 'em, or hell even that whole Ouigi Board thing. But next time you see Hitler will you try to get his autograph for me?

In perspective, when being oppressed by a King, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

When question why the US Government is spying and collecting data on US Citizens, Obama stated:

"It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience."

So ya, I do not think they would enjoy the current state of affairs. Since that is a complete contradiction from what Benjamin Franklin was hoping America to become.

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 10:24 PM

Well, that "condescending" tone or whatever it may be, is not something that I intend to have in any of my posts. It is just the way that I write and talk. Going forward, do not take it personally because I do not feel as though I am better than any of you.

The OP says otherwise. Telling people that you KNOW how they feel on this issue is very condescending. But k.

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 10:25 PM

Well, that "condescending" tone or whatever it may be, is not something that I intend to have in any of my posts. It is just the way that I write and talk. Going forward, do not take it personally because I do not feel as though I am better than any of you.

In perspective, when being oppressed by a King, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

When question why the US Government is spying and collecting data on US Citizens, Obama stated:

"It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience."

So ya, I do not think they would enjoy the current state of affairs. Since that is a complete contradiction from what Benjamin Franklin was hoping America to become.

Okay, so say that!!!!! "I THINK" thats the key word!!! You don't know that! Thats like saying I know that Hitler would have an iPhone!

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 10:26 PM

Okay, so say that!!!!! "I THINK" thats the key word!!! You don't know that! Thats like saying I know that Hitler would have an iPhone!

Alright but when you can look at someone saying "I want the country to be this way" and then the country ends up the opposite, you can fairly accurately say that the person would be mad and unhappy with how things turned out.

But yes, you cannot completely guarantee that someone would feel a certain way.

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 10:34 PM

But yes, you cannot completely guarantee that someone would feel a certain way.

So says the person who pretty much guaranteed he knew how everyone here felt on the issue of guns.

Capto

July 7th, 2013, 10:36 PM

Oh yeah, also, guns shouldn't be made illegal simply because there would be no real point in it. Because I'm sure that illegal firearm traffickers care so much about the law.

Skyline

July 7th, 2013, 10:36 PM

Alright but when you can look at someone saying "I want the country to be this way" and then the country ends up the opposite, you can fairly accurately say that the person would be mad and unhappy with how things turned out.

But yes, you cannot completely guarantee that someone would feel a certain way.

EXACTLY! So for the sake of my time, please don't make me argue against something that isn't even remotely able of being backed up...

StoppingTime

July 7th, 2013, 10:39 PM

Stop trying to make something more out of things I post. That was not a condescending thing at all, and when anything it in-grained in Society, I understand why they get emotional about it.

I'm going to be entirely honest here. People hate when someone says, "I know what you're going through" "I know how you feel 100%" "I understand why you're upset..but..." The phrase in and of itself is condescending because you don't know what other people feel, ever.
#the more you know

There is a big difference between completely accidental things and things that are not. People accidentally being killed with guns is not 100% an accident as it is normally due to a lack of training or the guns not being kept in a safe place (a kid is likely to find it.)

>People accidentally being killed with guns is not 100% an accident
>People accidentally being killed with guns is not 100% an accident
>People accidentally being killed with guns is not 100% an accident

It's an accident or it's not...there's no in between.

Of course it does exist, I do not think Japan or South Korea are any sort of paradise. But when places like Japan, SK, Norway, Spain, Australia, Sweden, etc, all have drastically lower gun death and crime rates, then I think we should look at all those countries to find out what they share and why we are different.

Japan: Population 127 million. Very few guns are legal but they aren't all banned. Keep in mind they've had a long time (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/) (long over 50 years) to perfect these laws. Fewer people owned guns then, fewer people live there. It's much easier to have strict policy in a country like that.

America: Population 310 million, with a land area that is 10s of time larger than that of Japan. Now, try and think how the government would go on about banning all firearms. If it took Japan that long, it'd be impossible for the US.

The only countries with higher gun death rates than the US are Nicaragua, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Colombia, Swaziland, Jamaica, El Salvador and Honduras.

k

Yes that is true, it is around 45% for protection and 35% for hunting. And I do think that some people may be in love with them, and if not, that is at least the terminology that most people use when talking about people that like guns.

You missed the point. The majority of those who own guns don't own them simply because they can and they want to kill things.

Yes, the culture is different. But it is more than just Asian countries, practically all European countries are just as low in gun crime/death as Japan and SK. Sure, their culture is still different but it is closer to the USA.

Cultures will always be different with this comparison

Yes, I said that ;)

but we should start trying to transition to a culture that is more like Norway or Sweden or Greece or South Korea or Japan.

Why? Because we'll be like them? Read what I said above, and rethink this.

No, it requires a whole culture change. But a symbol of violence like the Gun is where most other countries started their change and it seems like a good place for us to do the same.

Except it's impossible to have millions of law abiding Americans to give up their guns. Do you have any idea what that would require?

It means how likely someone is to be affected by crime at night when walking around. They compared the busiest city in America and the busiest city in South Korea (Seoul, which is actually far more packed and busy than any single place in the USA, especially at night.)

Lovely.

It definitely would not be fast like I said earlier, it could take 50-100 years to have a mass culture change regarding violence as a whole and guns.

Try adding a few more hundred. ;)

The most recent study which looked to see if there was a connection between gun crime and gun laws found that the contributing factors were less related to local gun laws but instead one of the highest factors was indeed education. College graduates had the most significant lowering of gun violence and crime.

A more educated population would then have an impact on gun violence.

Real life ≠ the Sims.

If people needed to revolt, yes, that would be the best way. Cutting off money to the Government would greatly hurt it.

Yes because the government is so rich atm amirite or amirite.

Southside

July 7th, 2013, 10:43 PM

Oh yeah, also, guns shouldn't be made illegal simply because there would be no real point in it. Because I'm sure that illegal firearm traffickers care so much about the law.

Finally a smart person on here, no gun traffickers or criminals are going to say "Guns are illegal! Let's stop trafficking them and shooting people!"

REASON GUN CONTROL FAILS:

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Bans on semi-automatic weapons,though I've heard of gang members rolling around with SKS's and compact AK's..

500+ Killed in 2012

67 shot in the Independence Day weekend..

Banning guns wont change a society thats rooted in violence, keep living in your Surburban utopia

Capto

July 7th, 2013, 10:46 PM

Cygnus

July 7th, 2013, 10:48 PM

Only military and police should have guns, thats it.

Southside

July 7th, 2013, 10:49 PM

Only military and police should have guns, thats it.

So,I shouldnt be able to protect myself, family, or property with a revolver or other compact weapon?

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 10:53 PM

Banning guns wont change a society thats rooted in violence, keep living in your Surburban utopias..

It's not just people living in Suburbs who are for this. Gun control nuts want gun control because they're afraid of something they don't get/understand. They want it banned because they think a gun, not acted upon by an outside force, kills everyone in its immediate vicinity. While I'm sure sfsethfitz lives in a nice comfy home, it's a bit unfair to stereotype. I could easily tell you to stop talking like you know it all since you're from an inner city area. But I won't because that gets us nowhere.

Only military and police should have guns, thats it.

Sorry champ, that doesn't work out quite so well. Give the authority forces the power to wield something that the public can not defend itself against is just asking for trouble.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 10:57 PM

Yep. Illegalizing guns is fine and dandy, but if we're not able to enforce the illegalization, then there's no point in doing so.

EDIT: That guy really compared Seoul to 'the busiest city in America'? Whaaa-?

Uhm ya, busiest city in America has 8.2 million people (New York City)

Seoul has 10.58 million people. So ya I did compare. :yeah:

Southside

July 7th, 2013, 11:00 PM

It's not just people living in Suburbs who are for this. Gun control nuts want gun control because they're afraid of something they don't get/understand. They want it banned because they think a gun, not acted upon by an outside force, kills everyone in its immediate vicinity. While I'm sure sfsethfitz lives in a nice comfy home, it's a bit unfair to stereotype. I could easily tell you to stop talking like you know it all since you're from an inner city area. But I won't because that gets us nowhere.

Sorry champ, that doesn't work out quite so well. Give the authority forces the power to wield something that the public can not defend itself against is just asking for trouble.

Im sure no suburbs are experiencing 500+ killed by gun violences, nor 67 shot in a week.

What im saying is, as soon as some suburban or rural school gets shot up, its a outcry. Couple hundred people die in the innercity, that shit doesnt even make the news.

Im going to quote a wise man I met at Mcdonalds on this one, "Gun control only matters when people get shot in places where there not supose to get shot". Meaning, it's only important when it starts to become a problem in Suburbia USA. Where's the memorial fund for the few hundred people dying in our inner city streets right now? Where's the people crying and angry politicans for us? We dont matter because its supose to happen to us..it's only a problem when it happens to people that its not supose to happen to.

Though who am I to be heard? I'm just a innercity kid trying to act bad ass!

Capto

July 7th, 2013, 11:00 PM

Uhm ya, busiest city in America has 8.2 million people (New York City)

Seoul has 10.58 million people. So ya I did compare. :yeah:

Irrelevant. It's just stupid that you'd compare a US city to a South Korean one.

And with that, good night.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 11:02 PM

Irrelevant. It's just stupid that you'd compare a US city to a South Korean one.

And with that, good night.

Not really, it shows that a busy city which we associate with crime being an issue would have such a difference in crime.

I provided the comparison because I was specifically showing how their culture was better than America's. So yep..

Cygnus

July 7th, 2013, 11:15 PM

So,I shouldnt be able to protect myself, family, or property with a revolver or other compact weapon?

You know the offender can take your weapon and easily kill you with it if you do not know how to use it well. If the offender doesn't have a gun either then there is not much threat, by learning a simple martial art you can win a battle.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 11:18 PM

You know the offender can take your weapon and easily kill you with it if you do not know how to use it well. If the offender doesn't have a gun either then there is not much threat, by learning a simple martial art you can win a battle.

Martial Arts > 95% of People with Guns, that is definitely true. People should be forced to learn actual self defense before running to a machine to help them.

Southside

July 7th, 2013, 11:21 PM

You know the offender can take your weapon and easily kill you with it if you do not know how to use it well. If the offender doesn't have a gun either then there is not much threat, by learning a simple martial art you can win a battle.

So "martial arts" would be able to protect me & my family against a home intruder with a pistol or revolver? I agree on learning self defense, though how can you be sure a intruder is armed or not, the weapon could be in his waistband. It's called not taking risk, I dont care if your unarmed or not, if your in my home unwelcomed, 9/10 your not stepping out the door unharmed.

Cygnus

July 7th, 2013, 11:37 PM

So "martial arts" would be able to protect me & my family against a home intruder with a pistol or revolver? I agree on learning self defense, though how can you be sure a intruder is armed or not, the weapon could be in his waistband. It's called not taking risk, I dont care if your unarmed or not, if your in my home unwelcomed, 9/10 your not stepping out the door unharmed.

Martial arts can actually teach you to disarm a person with any type of gun. Also, if guns are banned the chances that the offender has a gun are significantly diminished.

Southside

July 7th, 2013, 11:42 PM

Martial arts can actually teach you to disarm a person with any type of gun. Also, if guns are banned the chances that the offender has a gun are significantly diminished.

Yeah I've seen videos of martial arts experts disarming people with their hands but come on..The average guy isnt going to know that shit, a gun is a simpler way to protect yourself.

Walter Powers

July 7th, 2013, 11:46 PM

Well if they are non-violent, then why do they need guns?

This is the most crazy thing I've read in a long time. To protect themselves! A criminal isn't going to care whether guns are illegal or not; he's a criminal.

Finally a smart person on here, no gun traffickers or criminals are going to say "Guns are illegal! Let's stop trafficking them and shooting people!"

REASON GUN CONTROL FAILS:

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Bans on semi-automatic weapons,though I've heard of gang members rolling around with SKS's and compact AK's..

500+ Killed in 2012

67 shot in the Independence Day weekend..

Banning guns wont change a society thats rooted in violence, keep living in your Surburban utopias..

Totally agree. I think we've found some common ground here :)

Cygnus

July 7th, 2013, 11:49 PM

Yeah I've seen videos of martial arts experts disarming people with their hands but come on..The average guy isnt going to know that shit, a gun is a simpler way to protect yourself.

Guns ruined the fun and art of fighting, I say ban them, so fights become more even and interesting. If I had a say I would incinerate all guns from the world.

Walter Powers

July 7th, 2013, 11:52 PM

Guns ruined the fun and art of fighting, I say ban them, so fights become more even and interesting. If I had a say I would incinerate all guns from the world.

I hope you're kidding...guns make fights a lot less brutal or avaoid them all together and are a much less painful way to die then hand to hand comibot. The invention of guns was a good thing; it allows for more order.

Nellerin

July 7th, 2013, 11:52 PM

This is the most crazy thing I've read in a long time. To protect themselves! A criminal isn't going to care whether guns are illegal or not; he's a criminal.

I'm saying if the whole of society is peaceful, there is no need for guns. Because guns are only for violence (justified or not.)

Walter Powers

July 7th, 2013, 11:55 PM

I'm saying if the whole of society is peaceful, there is no need for guns. Because guns are only for violence (justified or not.)

The only country that is going to be totally peaceful is a totally repressed nation there's always going to be some violence. Although I can see how a change to inner city culture and reducing the inner city's dependance on government would help curtail crime.

Sugaree

July 7th, 2013, 11:56 PM

I'm saying if the whole of society is peaceful, there is no need for guns. Because guns are only for violence (justified or not.)

Generalizations, generalizations EVERYWHERE.

Obviously no one has interests in guns as a hobby and collects them. Obviously no one goes to a shooting range on the rare occasion and shoots targets for fun. Obviously no one is a scholar on the history of firearms and has a job as a firearms museum tour guide. Your generalizations have made this thread into a shit fest, so stop it.

Nellerin

July 8th, 2013, 12:05 AM

The only country that is going to be totally peaceful is a totally repressed nation there's always going to be some violence. Although I can see how a change to inner city culture and reducing the inner city's dependance on government would help curtail crime.

That is actually far from true, there are entire areas that have zero crime. Look at the entirely Buddhist areas of Tibet, zero crime. You change people's way of thinking and voila, no crime! It is possible. Saying it is not, is the easy way out.

Southside

July 8th, 2013, 12:05 AM

Gun control only matters when shooting becomes a issue where it's not supose to.

Nellerin

July 8th, 2013, 12:34 AM

Gun control only matters when shooting becomes a issue where it's not supose to.

Which it has..

Cygnus

July 8th, 2013, 12:39 AM

I hope you're kidding...guns make fights a lot less brutal or avaoid them all together and are a much less painful way to die then hand to hand comibot. The invention of guns was a good thing; it allows for more order.

Now that was the most nationalistic comment ever. Guns are no art, guns give no challenge, no fun, no honor.

Harry Smith

July 8th, 2013, 09:31 AM

I think the issue isn't gun control itself, the issue is America.

I'm not saying that in a bad way at all, I mean in Britain we have relatively strict gun controls laws which were mainly adopted after Dunblane, and it has worked for us. But that's what works for us.

The solution to gun control in America has to be an American solution. I mean action has been taken in the last 60 so years, LBJ's 1968 firearms act, the ban of assault weapons under Clinton.

This is way in Britain I believe a blanket ban is correct but it wouldn't work in America

britishboy

July 8th, 2013, 09:42 AM

what you have to remember is that psychos are in both Britian and America, but in Britain a psycho can not kill that many as will probably be using a knife, in America they have automatic firearms and can massacre hundreds of school children

PinkFloyd

July 8th, 2013, 09:49 AM

This is the way I see it:

If people in the US don't like the gun freedom thing, they should go to another country and leave us idiotic Americans to do our own thing.

Now is when I wait about 15 minutes to get a response from one of you. :rolleyes:

Walter Powers

July 8th, 2013, 10:06 AM

Now that was the most nationalistic comment ever. Guns are no art, guns give no challenge, no fun, no honor.

What? Before guns, you had to enforce the laws and protect yourself with either knives or hand to hand combat, which was brutal. Guns are a tool that either prevents this from happening or ends a persons life quickly without much suffering. They are a good invention.

RyanCrest

July 8th, 2013, 11:10 AM

Even if you make guns illegal that won't fix the problem. Example: drugs are illegal but people still die of drug overdose. Also, due you eliminate rapes by making penises illegal. NO! Lots of people have penises, but they dont all rape people with them. Clearly it's the person that is the problem, not the tool they use.

Professional Russian

July 8th, 2013, 11:23 AM

First of all we have the 2nd amendment. 2nd of all japan and all those other countries banned gun when they were created. 3rd if you take guns from the american people only the bad guys will have guns. And 4th if you take guns from.the american people you've got a civil war on your hands.

whatsgoinon53

July 8th, 2013, 01:22 PM

Alright, from what I have seen with other threads that mention guns, many people are really emotional about the topic and I understand that.

With all of the evidence showing that making guns hard to attain does indeed lower gun crime rates in a big way, should they be made illegal?

Even though we have attempted to do this before in the US (to some extent) it was not in the lawbooks long enough to make a difference and most people do agree with that.

The US has the highest gun ownership in the World

There were 12,000 Gun Homicides in the US in 2008 while there were just 11 in Japan

Hundreds of people die simply from accidental gun discharges

Strict laws against guns in countries like Japan have led to gun crime being almost non-existent

Therefore, should we go down the same path in order to stop this senseless violence present in America. Of course there would be a lot of road-bumps with this process since so many people are literally "in love" with their Guns and would die protecting them.

But, if we made guns illegal, slowly but surely the crime rates would indeed go down quite a bit. Also, the entire "gun culture" that is in the US whether it be in the form of Hunting, Gangs, Police, Media, etc, the US is practically addicted to Guns and Violence as a whole.

So what do you think? Should Guns finally just be made illegal, like they are in much more peaceful countries.

My land of Australia is one of those reasonably more peaceful countries. You must have a license and you must be over 18 to operate a gun. Most Australians only use guns for hunting purposes. There has not been many gun incidents at all during the last 10 years in Australia simply because they have always been illegal.

I can imagine that a lot of Americans would be devastated if their guns were made illegal. I remember seeing a news report after the Connecticut Elementary school shooting. A British news reporter suggested to the head of America's NRA (National Rifle's Association) to make their guns illegal. Well you can imagine what happened next! The NRA CEO outburst into total rage. The idea of banning guns just didn't seem right to him.

I think that it is time for the USA to make guns illegal. It would provide a much safer and stronger country. Yes there will still be the occasional murder, (it happens in every country) and I don't speak lightly on that, it's terrible. Gun shops should be shut down and people should have to qualify for a gun license to be able to use it for HUNTING purposes.

Capto

July 8th, 2013, 01:35 PM

2nd of all japan and all those other countries banned gun when they were created.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Professional Russian

July 8th, 2013, 01:48 PM

What exactly do you mean by that?

Most countries banned guns before civilians could get them that's why you don't see much gun crime in countries like that as where the US always allowed guns to be owned by civilians that's why they don't have gun violence because civilians never had it.

Capto

July 8th, 2013, 01:55 PM

Most countries banned guns before civilians could get them that's why you don't see much gun crime in countries like that as where the US always allowed guns to be owned by civilians that's why they don't have gun violence because civilians never had it.

I see. I would argue against that with your example of Japan, but I'm afraid that would be mildly off-topic. But with other nations, that seems very reasonable.

Harry Smith

July 8th, 2013, 02:18 PM

Most countries banned guns before civilians could get them that's why you don't see much gun crime in countries like that as where the US always allowed guns to be owned by civilians that's why they don't have gun violence because civilians never had it.

We got rid of our pistols after the Dunblane school massacre, we didn't go down the root of blaming something else on it or claiming that the if someone in the school had a gun then they'd be fun. We simply banned handguns and we haven't had any school massacres since

Capto

July 8th, 2013, 02:35 PM

Look at the entirely Buddhist areas of Tibet, zero crime.

Just putting it out there that any portion of Tibet is the single worst example to use. Have you been to the 'entirely Buddhist areas'? The entirety of Tibet is censored to hell.

Professional Russian

July 8th, 2013, 04:38 PM

I see. I would argue against that with your example of Japan, but I'm afraid that would be mildly off-topic. But with other nations, that seems very reasonable.

The basic point gets across right?

Capto

July 8th, 2013, 04:38 PM

The basic point gets across right?

More or less.

Taryn98

July 8th, 2013, 05:24 PM

I'll sum up everything I have to say with one video explaining how guns are not the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

And one study that shows guns prevent 2.5 million crimes a year whereas 10000 people being murdered by guns a year. That's 250 times more prevented crimes per intentional gun related murder.

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

One final thought regarding the argument that other countries have less gun crime than America, guess what America IS NOT LIKE OTHER COUNTRIES! And that's a good thing! You can't just compare different countries. Every situation and way of life is different and guns (like most other issues) is not as simple as comparing one statistic in 2 countries. It's far more complicated than that.

Sugaree

July 8th, 2013, 06:14 PM

Look at the entirely Buddhist areas of Tibet, zero crime. You change people's way of thinking and voila, no crime!

You've never been to Tibet, have you? Do you have any idea how awful it is over there? To claim that, because of ONE religion - one which I belong to - is the reason why there is no crime is fucking ludicrous. Get off your high horse.

Jakers61

July 10th, 2013, 08:13 PM

How did I talk down to anybody?

Of course it changed the future, although the Founding Fathers would hate the US in its current state.

You can't say the founding fathers would be mad at how the US is now. It's a hell of a lot better than when they were divided then and fighting to keep freedom from England. We're not in that era anymore. You're arguing about the past and you're bring up stuff from 200 years ago.

Jasperf

July 13th, 2013, 04:47 PM

teen.jpg

July 13th, 2013, 09:55 PM

Yes! What the hell do we need them for?

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 03:33 PM

Yes! What the hell do we need them for?

How about defending ourselves from criminals who don't care whether they're illegal or not?

Harry Smith

July 14th, 2013, 03:35 PM

How about defending ourselves from criminals who don't care whether they're illegal or not?

Have you ever been attacked by a criminal in the street?

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 03:39 PM

Have you ever been attacked by a criminal in the street?

No, but I don't live in the inner city. You don't think a gun would be helpful if you're attacked?

Harry Smith

July 14th, 2013, 03:45 PM

No, but I don't live in the inner city. You don't think a gun would be helpful if you're attacked?

No because I have no need for it, I've never been attacked by a gunman before. I've been mugged by someone asking for 40p, I wouldn't of want to shoot a 15 year in his school uniform for asking me if I had any money. That's an outrageous about of force, I live in the inner city I know that a gun wouldn't help me on bit.

The whole idea that you need guns to defend yourself is absured.

Guns have been made illegal here yet as Pro gun people suggest criminals don't walk around threatening people with them all the time. You have republicans saying teachers should have handguns. That shows just how stupid they are, teachers are paid to teach not defend a school

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 03:52 PM

No because I have no need for it, I've never been attacked by a gunman before. I've been mugged by someone asking for 40p, I wouldn't of want to shoot a 15 year in his school uniform for asking me if I had any money. That's an outrageous about of force, I live in the inner city I know that a gun wouldn't help me on bit.

The whole idea that you need guns to defend yourself is absured.

Guns have been made illegal here yet as Pro gun people suggest criminals don't walk around threatening people with them all the time. You have republicans saying teachers should have handguns. That shows just how stupid they are, teachers are paid to teach not defend a school

Have you ever been to inner city America? The US is a lot different then Europe in our urban model in that our poorest populations live in the highest density areas. Whereas in Europe, the poorer people generally live out in the suburbs. The result of this is that our crime is much more concentrated, and it makes certain places much more dangerous. This makes the necessity of means to protect oneself much greater.

Harry Smith

July 14th, 2013, 03:58 PM

Have you ever been to inner city America? The US is a lot different then Europe in our urban model in that our poorest populations live in the highest density areas. Whereas in Europe, the poorer people generally live out in the suburbs. The result of this is that our crime is much more concentrated, and it makes certain places much more dangerous. This makes the necessity of means to protect oneself much greater.

Your telling me about Europe, mate I've got council flats 50 metres from my house, I've had someone kiled with a sword 4 doors down from where I live, crime is an issue where I live. America is the only western country to have such relaxed gun control.

The whole idea that you need guns to protect yourself is stupid, should I have an anti tank mine by my back door in case someone breaks in?

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 04:20 PM

Your telling me about Europe, mate I've got council flats 50 metres from my house, I've had someone kiled with a sword 4 doors down from where I live, crime is an issue where I live. America is the only western country to have such relaxed gun control.

The whole idea that you need guns to protect yourself is stupid, should I have an anti tank mine by my back door in case someone breaks in?

Who said you NEED guns to protect yourself? I'm just saying the are the most effective reasonable means to do so.

Stronk Serb

July 14th, 2013, 04:31 PM

We can make our own guns and ammo, if all guns disappear and we forget how to make them, we can always resort to poking with sharpened sticks and bare hands. Considering the crime rates in many areas of the US, yeah, a handgun seems reasonable for self and home defense, a hunting rifle for hunting should be enough also, not an assault rifle or other high-end weapons. They should just make them all harder to acquire, the illegal way. And they should do mental tests when issuing licences, or be more thorough if that is already one of the criteria to get a licence.

Harry Smith

July 14th, 2013, 04:31 PM

Who said you NEED guns to protect yourself? I'm just saying the are the most effective reasonable means to do so.

How about defending ourselves from criminals who don't care whether they're illegal or not?

That has been one of the concluding arguments used by pro gun members on this forum

teen.jpg

July 14th, 2013, 06:26 PM

How about defending ourselves from criminals who don't care whether they're illegal or not?

So let me get this straight ... We need guns to protect us from people who have guns?

Wait wait, stay with me here. If the "bad guys" can't get the guns, then why do WE need guns to protect ourselves?

It's simple logic. The chances of you getting shot and killed when it's harder to get a gun are lowered drastically. I can't believe you don't see that.

Taryn98

July 14th, 2013, 06:34 PM

The whole idea that you need guns to defend yourself is absured.

One of my best friend's older sisters was gang raped by like 10 people (she doesn't even know how many). She was in high school at the time so it's not like she was old enough to own or carry a gun, but if she had a gun, this wouldn't have ever happened to her.

Even after several years of therapy and medication, she's still depressed, has anxiety, doesn't like to go anywhere alone, and is afraid of men altogether. Her life will never be the same.

This all happened in a town of 65000. So it was not the inner city and violent crime is relatively rare, but bad things do happen.

I'm not trying to say that high school girls should carry guns, but to say that carrying a gun to defend yourself is absurd is not at all how I see things. Guns can and do protect people.

What happened to my friend's sister is very rare, but statistically gun homicide is also rare. 10000 people die per year in a country of 300 million from gun homicide. More people die here each year from car accidents (~30,000), medical malpractice (~40,000-100,000), smoking (~400,000), even the flu (~20,000-40,000). Why don't people want to ban cars, cigarrettes, and doctors?

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 06:40 PM

So let me get this straight ... We need guns to protect us from people who have guns?

Wait wait, stay with me here. If the "bad guys" can't get the guns, then why do WE need guns to protect ourselves?

It's simple logic. The chances of you getting shot and killed when it's harder to get a gun are lowered drastically. I can't believe you don't see that.

And how will you prevent the bad guys from getting guns? HOW? The way I see it is that, sure, you may reduce the amount of bad guys with guns a bit, but you will reduce the number of good guys with guns to zero, so more law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of criminals. The net affect would be more murders and less order.

All the places with lots of shooting deaths have vastly curtailed gun rights. NYC. Chicago. Mexico. And look at other things that we've outlawed yet still are widely possessed, such as Marijuana. It's simply impossible for any law to stop use of something so widely used, and so it makes the most sense to keep it legal.

Plus, what do you want to do, have the police raid people's houses and take all there currently legal guns? Not to mention the fact you'd need a consitutional amendment for this to happen in America.

Taryn98

July 14th, 2013, 06:40 PM

So let me get this straight ... We need guns to protect us from people who have guns?
Wait wait, stay with me here. If the "bad guys" can't get the guns, then why do WE need guns to protect ourselves?

It's simple logic. The chances of you getting shot and killed when it's harder to get a gun are lowered drastically. I can't believe you don't see that.

How are bad guys not going to get guns? Drugs are illegal and even I can get drugs. Alcohol was illegal at one time, that wasn't difficult to get. And there's already 300 million guns around. Statistically, there's no way you can round them all up. And even if you do, police and the military have guns and not all police and military are "clean". There will always be a black market for anything that becaomes illegal.
It's idealistic and unrealistic to think criminals won't be able to get guns or anything else that is illegal.

Harry Smith

July 14th, 2013, 06:43 PM

One of my best friend's older sisters was gang raped by like 10 people (she doesn't even know how many). She was in high school at the time so it's not like she was old enough to own or carry a gun, but if she had a gun, this wouldn't have ever happened to her.

Even after several years of therapy and medication, she's still depressed, has anxiety, doesn't like to go anywhere alone, and is afraid of men altogether. Her life will never be the same.

This all happened in a town of 65000. So it was not the inner city and violent crime is relatively rare, but bad things do happen.

I'm not trying to say that high school girls should carry guns, but to say that carrying a gun to defend yourself is absurd is not at all how I see things. Guns can and do protect people.

What happened to my friend's sister is very rare, but statistically gun homicide is also rare. 10000 people die per year in a country of 300 million from gun homicide. More people die here each year from car accidents (~30,000), medical malpractice (~40,000-100,000), smoking (~400,000), even the flu (~20,000-40,000). Why don't people want to ban cars, cigarrettes, and doctors?

I admit that that is both rare and a very bad situation. It really highlights the big picture.

The firearm was invented to kill a person. They don't transport you, help replace a kidney or heck I can't justify cigarettes.

And how will you prevent the bad guys from getting guns? HOW? The way I see it is that, sure, you may reduce the amount of bad guys with guns a bit, but you will reduce the number of good guys with guns to zero, so more law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of criminals. The net affect would be more murders and less order.

All the places with lots of shooting deaths have vastly curtailed gun rights. NYC. Chicago. Mexico. And look at other things that we've outlawed yet still are widely possessed, such as Marijuana. It's simply impossible for any law to outlaw something so widely used, and so it makes the most sense t

So by your theory should Child porn be legal because even if it's illegal bad guys will still get hold of it?

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 06:49 PM

I admit that that is both rare and a very bad situation. It really highlights the big picture.

The firearm was invented to kill a person. They don't transport you, help replace a kidney or heck I can't justify cigarettes.

So by your theory should Child porn be legal because even if it's illegal bad guys will still get hold of it?

No, of course not! The victim of child porn has nothing to gain by owning child porn themselves, whereas a potential victim of a gun could have everything to gain by having a gun themselves. They are totally different situations.

teen.jpg

July 14th, 2013, 06:54 PM

And how will you prevent the bad guys from getting guns? HOW? The way I see it is that, sure, you may reduce the amount of bad guys with guns a bit, but you will reduce the number of good guys with guns to zero, so more law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of criminals. The net affect would be more murders and less order.

All the places with lots of shooting deaths have vastly curtailed gun rights. NYC. Chicago. Mexico. And look at other things that we've outlawed yet still are widely possessed, such as Marijuana. It's simply impossible for any law to stop use of something so widely used, and so it makes the most sense to keep it legal.

Plus, what do you want to do, have the police raid people's houses and take all there currently legal guns? Not to mention the fact you'd need a consitutional amendment for this to happen in America.

You're over-exaggerating with how much you expect these shooting deaths to happen. And if they take away the guns, and make them less available, then where do you expect them to get guns from in the first place? Thin air?

How are bad guys not going to get guns? Drugs are illegal and even I can get drugs. Alcohol was illegal at one time, that wasn't difficult to get. And there's already 300 million guns around. Statistically, there's no way you can round them all up. And even if you do, police and the military have guns and not all police and military are "clean". There will always be a black market for anything that becaomes illegal.
It's idealistic and unrealistic to think criminals won't be able to get guns or anything else that is illegal.

So everything should be legal because it can always be obtained even if it's illegal? That makes a lot of sense ...

[Merged Double Post. -StoppingTime]

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 07:04 PM

You're over-exaggerating with how much you expect these shooting deaths to happen. And if they take away the guns, and make them less available, then where do you expect them to get guns from in the first place? Thin air?

I repeat, other then saying they are illegal, how are you going to prevent the bad guys from getting their hands on guns?

Where do people get marijauna? By your logic, nobody would have it here.

teen.jpg

July 14th, 2013, 07:11 PM

I repeat, other then saying they are illegal, how are you going to prevent the bad guys from getting their hands on guns?

Where do people get marijauna? By your logic, nobody would have it here.

Marijuana is from a plant and comes from nature. There is literally no way to stop that.

Guns are manufactured, and if the manufacturers stop providing them to the public, and the law does something about the guns people already have, there would be a lot less trouble.

I'm not saying 100% of gun violence will disappear, but a good majority of it will.

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 11:19 PM

Marijuana is from a plant and comes from nature. There is literally no way to stop that.

Guns are manufactured, and if the manufacturers stop providing them to the public, and the law does something about the guns people already have, there would be a lot less trouble.

I'm not saying 100% of gun violence will disappear, but a good majority of it will.
Do you have a sucessful example of a country where they have banned gun usage? Because this certainly should be tested before being applied to the most influential country in the world.

LouBerry

July 14th, 2013, 11:27 PM

teen.jpg

July 14th, 2013, 11:34 PM

Do you have a sucessful example of a country where they have banned gun usage? Because this certainly should be tested before being applied to the most influential country in the world.

Here's some figures for the UK, with bans on gun laws;

United Kingdom (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)

And here's some for the US;

United States (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)

The figures for total gun deaths are DRASTICALLY different.

nate21500

July 14th, 2013, 11:34 PM

I say no, it only takes guns from good people and the bad people still have them

teen.jpg

July 14th, 2013, 11:40 PM

You could pass a law today that says all guns are illegal, and the "bad guys" will still have guns tomorrow, and the next day, and ten years from now. People do know how to make guns, and it'll turn into another behind closed doors thing. "Bad guys" will be able to pay some sketchy guy to make/acquire them a gun, meanwhile, people like me will get arrested or fined for keep our hunting rifles.

How often do you really expect people to go out of their way to do that? A lot less then the amount of people who can easily purchase a gun.

StoppingTime

July 14th, 2013, 11:40 PM

Here's some figures for the UK, with bans on gun laws;

United Kingdom (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)

And here's some for the US;

United States (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)

The figures for total gun deaths are DRASTICALLY different.

I'm addressing something you said a while ago, but I don't know what post it was so I'll just quote this :3

It would be basically impossible to ban guns from the US retroactively, meaning that all current gun owners would need to "give back" their weapons. Can you even imagine how such a thing would be done?

Walter Powers

July 14th, 2013, 11:41 PM

Here's some figures for the UK, with bans on gun laws;

United Kingdom (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)

And here's some for the US;

United States (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)

The figures for total gun deaths are DRASTICALLY different.

1) Guns aren't illegal in the UK, just tightly regulated.

2) The UK is a very different country from America. They don't deal with the inner cities like we have to.

teen.jpg

July 14th, 2013, 11:45 PM

1) Guns aren't illegal in the UK, just tightly regulated.

2) The UK is a very different country from America. They don't deal with the inner cities like we have to.

1. Why do you keep whining about the "inner cities" so much? Yes, it's where most gun violence occurs, but it's really not as bad as you make it out to be. And if you really think it's so bad, then what are YOU thinking would be the solution to that?

2. You asked for a country I could use as an example, and I used the UK. Don't dismiss it because that's what you asked for.

It would be basically impossible to ban guns from the US retroactively, meaning that all current gun owners would need to "give back" their weapons. Can you even imagine how such a thing would be done?

True, but what else did the OP mean when they said "illegal". How else would you make sure people didn't have guns?

Posts Merged -Steven

LouBerry

July 14th, 2013, 11:46 PM

How often do you really expect people to go out of their way to do that? A lot less then the amount of people who can easily purchase a gun.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal won't reduce gun abuse violence or whatever the Hell you call it, but, and God knows how many times I've said this now, a psychopath isn't going to decide to kill a bunch of people, and then think, well shit, guns are illegal, guess I'll become a law-abiding citizen instead. No, that psycho is going to get on the internet and learn how to make a bomb, and blow up a school full of toddlers, or they're going to be like that guy in Texas, and they'll get a knife or pencil, and stab a bunch of people.

We HAVE to fix the real problem. Guns don't kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. The people pulling the trigger kill people. We need to fix that. Figure out WHY some people think it's okay to go on a killing spree.

Jess

July 14th, 2013, 11:54 PM

Not a fan of guns, but making them illegal will make things worse I think. There will obviously be people who will protest against such a thing. And what about self-defense? No, they shouldn't be illegal.

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 12:19 AM

I'm not saying that making guns illegal won't reduce gun abuse violence or whatever the Hell you call it, but, and God knows how many times I've said this now, a psychopath isn't going to decide to kill a bunch of people, and then think, well shit, guns are illegal, guess I'll become a law-abiding citizen instead. No, that psycho is going to get on the internet and learn how to make a bomb, and blow up a school full of toddlers, or they're going to be like that guy in Texas, and they'll get a knife or pencil, and stab a bunch of people.

We HAVE to fix the real problem. Guns don't kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. The people pulling the trigger kill people. We need to fix that. Figure out WHY some people think it's okay to go on a killing spree.
Agree 100%. If someone is going to kill someone its not like they aren't going to do it just because they dont have a gun. They can use anything even their hands. Killer aren't going to no longer be killers just because they dont have a gun. A gun is a tool just like a hammer(which by the way can be used to kill someone) if it used the way it should be this wouldnt be a problem

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 11:15 AM

Agree 100%. If someone is going to kill someone its not like they aren't going to do it just because they dont have a gun. They can use anything even their hands. Killer aren't going to no longer be killers just because they dont have a gun. A gun is a tool just like a hammer(which by the way can be used to kill someone) if it used the way it should be this wouldnt be a problem

A hammer is designed to help with manual work, a gun is designed to kill. A gun is much more effective at taking human life than a hammer is.

In regards to guns in the UK the system has worked, sure a small amount of criminals still get guns, you can't prevent that. But you can prevent the masses from owning them. America is the only western country to have such lax gun control laws.

The whole 'taking them away' argument is rather silly, it was the same argument used to condone slavery since the banning caused the civil war to in fact break out.

It's an American problem and I have no idea how many more school children will have to be killed to make you see that guns are the problems, are you happy to have that blood on your hands?

PerpetualImperfexion

July 15th, 2013, 12:11 PM

The question of whether we should make guns illegal or not comes down to a few things. What is the purpose of a gun? Realistically it can be for two things, murder and self defense. I'll remind you that they are still legal for the latter of those two purposes. So now we have to ask if they are being used correctly more than they are incorrectly. In 2008 11,000 murders were commited with firearms. 436,000 violent crimes (including murder, rape, assualt, attempted murder, robberies) were commited by an individual with a fire arm. A 2000 study showed that guns are used in defense of oneself or another person at least 989,000 times a year. I realize both of these stats are a bit old, but I would encourage you to check all of these facts out. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Based on the statistics I would say that guns are still more useful for self defense than for illegal activities. I'll remind you that criminals don't follow laws, including gun control laws. Taking away law abiding citizen's guns would eliminate the positive side of these statistics.

I'm not saying that our current leaders want to enslave us, but I would wager that somewhere down the line, if we don't have guns to defend ourselves from tyranny, we will just be fish in a barrel.

A hammer is designed to help with manual work, a gun is designed to kill. A gun is much more effective at taking human life than a hammer is.

In regards to guns in the UK the system has worked, sure a small amount of criminals still get guns, you can't prevent that. But you can prevent the masses from owning them. America is the only western country to have such lax gun control laws.

The whole 'taking them away' argument is rather silly, it was the same argument used to condone slavery since the banning caused the civil war to in fact break out.

It's an American problem and I have no idea how many more school children will have to be killed to make you see that guns are the problems, are you happy to have that blood on your hands?

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.png

Walter Powers

July 15th, 2013, 02:44 PM

1. Why do you keep whining about the "inner cities" so much? Yes, it's where most gun violence occurs, but it's really not as bad as you make it out to be. And if you really think it's so bad, then what are YOU thinking would be the solution to that?

2. You asked for a country I could use as an example, and I used the UK. Don't dismiss it because that's what you asked for.

True, but what else did the OP mean when they said "illegal". How else would you make sure people didn't have guns?

Posts Merged -Steven

1. I think the solution is to improve the economy and reduce dependance. This will lead to people living better lives with less crime. Also, enchouraging the use of arms by law abiding citizens would be a good idea.

2. I think you should take a look at the data posted by Contrivance. After gun control policies were passed in the UK, homocides spiked. Again, give me an example where extreme gun control like you advocate has made a country safer.

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 04:28 PM

1. I think the solution is to improve the economy and reduce dependance. This will lead to people living better lives with less crime. Also, enchouraging the use of arms by law abiding citizens would be a good idea.

2. I think you should take a look at the data posted by Contrivance. After gun control policies were passed in the UK, homocides spiked. Again, give me an example where extreme gun control like you advocate has made a country safer.

Homicides spiked. That's the problem with crime where the states are so low, it means that anomalies can affect a graph's appearance very easily.

The fact isn't that the '98 stopped self defense of citizens, you always needed a license in this country, and self defense wasn't a reason that they allowed for gun ownership. In fact our self defense laws are very different.

The other problem is that '98 laws take time to implent, both by police and civilians, meaning there was a temporary set level of handguns out there.

I question I ask is after seeing 5 year's old being killed in schools we acted to outlaw pistols. We haven't had a pistol massacre since.

What does the US do to stop school massacres? Pump more guns into the equation, let's arm our teachers!

I feel sorry for the US

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 04:38 PM

Homicides spiked. That's the problem with crime where the states are so low, it means that anomalies can affect a graph's appearance very easily.

The fact isn't that the '98 stopped self defense of citizens, you always needed a license in this country, and self defense wasn't a reason that they allowed for gun ownership. In fact our self defense laws are very different.

The other problem is that '98 laws take time to implent, both by police and civilians, meaning there was a temporary set level of handguns out there.

I question I ask is after seeing 5 year's old being killed in schools we acted to outlaw pistols. We haven't had a pistol massacre since.

What does the US do to stop school massacres? Pump more guns into the equation, let's arm our teachers!

I feel sorry for the US
So your saying because someone with a screwed up mind went on a massacre it makes sense to punish a entire country buy taking their property.

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 04:45 PM

So your saying because someone with a screwed up mind went on a massacre it makes sense to punish a entire country buy taking their property.

He didn't have a screwed up mind, he had to in fact pass a test in order to get the pistols. There was nothing medically wrong with Ian Hamilton.

Britains didn't feel punished at all, our parliament passed the law very quickly without much opposition. There is no need for pistols in Britain, so yes it does make sense to take them away. I don't care if it's property, if I have drugs that I've bought then it's my property, if I buy a person that's my property. It doesn't justify illegality

Southside

July 15th, 2013, 04:47 PM

Homicides spiked. That's the problem with crime where the states are so low, it means that anomalies can affect a graph's appearance very easily.

The fact isn't that the '98 stopped self defense of citizens, you always needed a license in this country, and self defense wasn't a reason that they allowed for gun ownership. In fact our self defense laws are very different.

The other problem is that '98 laws take time to implent, both by police and civilians, meaning there was a temporary set level of handguns out there.

I question I ask is after seeing 5 year's old being killed in schools we acted to outlaw pistols. We haven't had a pistol massacre since.

What does the US do to stop school massacres? Pump more guns into the equation, let's arm our teachers!

I feel sorry for the US

No sympathy for the 500 or so killed in the 3rd largest city in America...Obviously gun control only matters when some school gets shot up..

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 04:54 PM

No sympathy for the 500 or so killed in the 3rd largest city in America...Obviously gun control only matters when some school gets shot up..

That's because with Chicago you have to be tough on the the causes of crime, your going to need about 10 years worth of social programs to sort that out.

Much of that is red on red shootings, something which doesn't sell well. A school massacre on the other hand highlights the issue much more, people have more sympathy for children rather than a criminal.

PerpetualImperfexion

July 15th, 2013, 05:18 PM

That's because with Chicago you have to be tough on the the causes of crime, your going to need about 10 years worth of social programs to sort that out.

Much of that is red on red shootings, something which doesn't sell well. A school massacre on the other hand highlights the issue much more, people have more sympathy for children rather than a criminal.

It honestly seems like you're most concerned about a specific group of victims. That is school children. I'm not sure if you're using this group as an excuse to ban every instant of guns or if you're genuinely concerned for that specific group. In all actuality you could solve the issue of school shootings with hightened security rather than completely removing guns from the equation. Sure removing guns seems like the simplest solution, but its also the laziest solution and it causes other problems outside of a school.

Walter Powers

July 15th, 2013, 05:20 PM

Homicides spiked. That's the problem with crime where the states are so low, it means that anomalies can affect a graph's appearance very easily.

The fact isn't that the '98 stopped self defense of citizens, you always needed a license in this country, and self defense wasn't a reason that they allowed for gun ownership. In fact our self defense laws are very different.

The other problem is that '98 laws take time to implent, both by police and civilians, meaning there was a temporary set level of handguns out there.

I question I ask is after seeing 5 year's old being killed in schools we acted to outlaw pistols. We haven't had a pistol massacre since.

What does the US do to stop school massacres? Pump more guns into the equation, let's arm our teachers!

I feel sorry for the US

If a teacher feels confident using a gun, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have one with a concealed carry permit. If the teacher in Sandy Hook had a gun, they might have been able to disable the shooter.

We can't entirely prevent these things from happening, but we can minimize there impact.

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 05:29 PM

It honestly seems like you're most concerned about a specific group of victims. That is school children. I'm not sure if you're using this group as an excuse to ban every instant of guns or if you're genuinely concerned for that specific group. In all actuality you could solve the issue of school shootings with hightened security rather than completely removing guns from the equation. Sure removing guns seems like the simplest solution, but its also the laziest solution and it causes other problems outside of a school.

If a teacher feels confident using a gun, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have one with a concealed carry permit. If the teacher in Sandy Hook had a gun, they might have been able to disable the shooter.

We can't entirely prevent these things from happening, but we can minimize there impact.

That's another problem, you seem to assume that going down to a target range twice a year shooting at a piece of cardboard. This teacher at best would have say a 9mm against someone with a rifle in the midst of combat, she has to make sure all her pupils are away then she attempts to take on the attacker.

NYPD cops only hit 40% of their targets in combat, what makes you think a teacher will fair any better.

Only America could be stupid enough to assume the ideas is more guns. We had the same situation, we banned handguns- we haven't had once since. It's worked for us

PerpetualImperfexion

July 15th, 2013, 05:44 PM

That's another problem, you seem to assume that going down to a target range twice a year shooting at a piece of cardboard. This teacher at best would have say a 9mm against someone with a rifle in the midst of combat, she has to make sure all her pupils are away then she attempts to take on the attacker.

NYPD cops only hit 40% of their targets in combat, what makes you think a teacher will fair any better.

Only America could be stupid enough to assume the ideas is more guns. We had the same situation, we banned handguns- we haven't had once since. It's worked for us

America is literally 45 times the size of great Britian. Our population is roughly five times yours. I can bet you we have 100s times more guns in circulation right now than you guys have ever had. You say you had the same situation, but that is completely untrue. Just because those policies worked on your tiny island of a country does not mean they will work here. Also I will ask politely for you to stop insulting a group of people (Americans) with words such as stupid. This is unbecoming of someone in a debate and insults make people think you've run out of logical arguments and have turned to verbal attacks.

EDIT: I will also remind you that we had a revolution to get away from oppressive british politics. It is no surprise to me that you guys simply rolled over and let your government take your guns. That's what you've been doing for hundreds of years.

Walter Powers

July 15th, 2013, 05:48 PM

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 05:51 PM

Yes, please stop insulting us with those mindless words. Especially since you Brits are the reason for our second amendment :p

Mindless? I backed up my points with evidence and stats. The second amendment is ridiculous, not only is it vague but it's 200 years out of date! We don't follow the Magna carta over here still, you shouldn't be bound to a document that was written by group of slave owning, old, white men. It's very subjective

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 05:59 PM

That's another problem, you seem to assume that going down to a target range twice a year shooting at a piece of cardboard. This teacher at best would have say a 9mm against someone with a rifle in the midst of combat, she has to make sure all her pupils are away then she attempts to take on the attacker.

NYPD cops only hit 40% of their targets in combat, what makes you think a teacher will fair any better.

Only America could be stupid enough to assume the ideas is more guns. We had the same situation, we banned handguns- we haven't had once since. It's worked for us
Just because you ban something it won't go away. The way you talk not one single person has been killed with a pistol since the ban. Look at slavery, drugs, prostitution. Slavery is banned on the global level but there is still a huge slave trade even in countries like America and england. Drugs are easily obtained and prositution is everywhere. And how is insulting the entire country of America helping to prove any point other than the fact that your so ignorant on the subject that you have to insult people. This is a debate forum not the 5th grade playground.

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 06:01 PM

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 06:01 PM

America is literally 45 times the size of great Britian. Our population is roughly five times yours. I can bet you we have 100s times more guns in circulation right now than you guys have ever had. You say you had the same situation, but that is completely untrue. Just because those policies worked on your tiny island of a country does not mean they will work here. Also I will ask politely for you to stop insulting a group of people (Americans) with words such as stupid. This is unbecoming of someone in a debate and insults make people think you've run out of logical arguments and have turned to verbal attacks.

EDIT: I will also remind you that we had a revolution to get away from oppressive british politics. It is no surprise to me that you guys simply rolled over and let your government take your guns. That's what you've been doing for hundreds of years.

I wasn't insulting your people, I was more so insulting your country as you proceeded to do above, we may be a small country but that does't make us any less important.

The gun culture over is different I admit, it was never a case of civilians having guns hence why their was no up-roar, you had to have e a membership which in turn is very secure.

I haven't ran out of ideas, I was merely putting some passion into it, something I regret now but I realized that I should know better than to question Americans about their country because America is simply the best isn't it?

Ya because we all know the worst thing in the world is white guys.

Did I ever say that?

PerpetualImperfexion

July 15th, 2013, 06:18 PM

Mindless? I backed up my points with evidence and stats. The second amendment is ridiculous, not only is it vague but it's 200 years out of date! We don't follow the Magna carta over here still, you shouldn't be bound to a document that was written by group of slave owning, old, white men. It's very subjective

The constitution may be 200 hundred years old and yet, because of the language, freedom of speech is still protected in the digital world. I guarantee you that none of the founding fathers thought there would be such a thing as the internet and yet the document, because of it's vague wording, is still capable of protecting this form of speech. The same is true for the second amendment. The more vague the wording the longer it will be applicable.

At the same time though those old, white men put a system in place to amend the document when their subjectivity became obvious.

I wasn't insulting your people, I was more so insulting your country as you proceeded to do above, we may be a small country but that does't make us any less important.

The gun culture over is different I admit, it was never a case of civilians having guns hence why their was no up-roar, you had to have e a membership which in turn is very secure.

I haven't ran out of ideas, I was merely putting some passion into it, something I regret now but I realized that I should know better than to question Americans about their country because America is simply the best isn't it?

Did I ever say that?

I was not insulting your country. All four points I listed were facts. Britain is an island, it is relatively small in both size and population, and as you conceded, the gun culture is different. I didn't say you were insignificant either. I said your policies are insignificant to us because we are completely different in every way stated above. I love my country with all her faults. I don't necessarily look at myself or my country as better than every other country... At least not anymore than the average person (I'm sure you're very fond of your country), but that is to be expected.

Now then shall we get back on track?

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 06:22 PM

The constitution may be 200 hundred years old and yet, because of the language, freedom of speech is still protected in the digital world. I guarantee you that none of the founding fathers thought there would be such a thing as the internet and yet the document, because of it's vague wording, is still capable of protecting this form of speech. The same is true for the second amendment. The more vague the wording the longer it will be applicable.

At the same time though those old, white men put a system in place to amend the document when their subjectivity became obvious.

I was not insulting your country. All four points I listed were facts. Britain is an island, it is relatively small in both size and population, and as you conceded, the gun culture is different. I didn't say you were insignificant either. I said your policies are insignificant to us because we are completely different in every way stated above. I love my country with all her faults. I don't necessarily look at myself or my country as better than every other country... At least not anymore than the average person (I'm sure you're very fond of your country), but that is to be expected.

Now then shall we get back on track?

The problem I have with the Second Amendment is that the climate at the time was so different, I mean one point always raised is that ' the right to bear arms' could in fact refer to the Militia's that in did won the war for the US due to the lack of standing army, something that was very strongly opposed at the time.

Saying that I also don't understand why people claim they need guns to stand up to 'government oppression' I mean say for example the US government do want to arrest you unfairly then you haven't got much chance legally have you. In a wider role say Civil unrest the Army would simply come in.

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 06:31 PM

I wasn't insulting your people, I was more so insulting your country as you proceeded to do above, we may be a small country but that does't make us any less important.

The gun culture over is different I admit, it was never a case of civilians having guns hence why their was no up-roar, you had to have e a membership which in turn is very secure.

I haven't ran out of ideas, I was merely putting some passion into it, something I regret now but I realized that I should know better than to question Americans about their country because America is simply the best isn't it?

Did I ever say that?
you said that people shouldnt listen to a document written by old white men. So ya kinda

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 06:37 PM

you said that people shouldnt listen to a document written by old white men. So ya kinda

It's because it shows the general difference in the 18th century, all men are created equal who wants a slave? That's the great part always overlooked, whilst America was fighting for freedom you were very happy to subject black men, women and children to slavery. Very Hypocritical.

I never meant to imply that white people are all bad one bit, every race in the world has blood on their hands. For a country as diverse as America (which it was even back then) you had a document which wasn't written by a broad consensus of people due to the limitations of the time period

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 06:48 PM

It's because it shows the general difference in the 18th century, all men are created equal who wants a slave? That's the great part always overlooked, whilst America was fighting for freedom you were very happy to subject black men, women and children to slavery. Very Hypocritical.

I never meant to imply that white people are all bad one bit, every race in the world has blood on their hands. For a country as diverse as America (which it was even back then) you had a document which wasn't written by a broad consensus of people due to the limitations of the time period

So your going to say that the constitution is wrong just because people back then had slaves in america. Lets not forget that it was the british who enslaved them and brought them here.

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 06:53 PM

So your going to say that the constitution is wrong just because people back then had slaves in america. Lets not forget that it was the british who enslaved them and brought them here.

I know, at least we didn't try and pretend that we granted all citizens equal birth rights because we were pretty mean back then.

Saying that we abolished slavery in 1833, you abolished it in 1860. Let's not forgot that gap.

I'm saying the whole document is wrong because of that, I'm saying that's a supporting fact,you can't claim that all citizens are equal etc and then sell slaves outside the same building.

Adam17

July 15th, 2013, 07:03 PM

I know, at least we didn't try and pretend that we granted all citizens equal birth rights because we were pretty mean back then.

Saying that we abolished slavery in 1833, you abolished it in 1860. Let's not forgot that gap.

I'm saying the whole document is wrong because of that, I'm saying that's a supporting fact,you can't claim that all citizens are equal etc and then sell slaves outside the same building.

And im sayin the past is the past and both America and England are different countries now and you saying what happened 200 years ago doesn't really have anything to do with the thread

Harry Smith

July 15th, 2013, 07:05 PM

And im sayin the past is the past and both America and England are different countries now and you saying what happened 200 years ago doesn't really have anything to do with the thread

It does actually have a lot do with this thread when it's ties in with the right to bear arms in the second amendment, which is heavily used in the US side of gun control

PerpetualImperfexion

July 15th, 2013, 07:29 PM

So lets recap.
Statistics show thats guns do more good than harm (at least in America).
Because of the current and past availibilty of guns they will never be gone and will by extent always be available to criminals who, if you've forgotten, do not follow the laws.
Effectively gun control would either disarm law abiding citizes or turn the ones who chose to keep their guns into criminals.
Specific examples, like school shootings, could be dealt with in a more dynamic way such as increasing general security (not necessarily arming teachers)
Tyranny will always be a threat and although having guns doesn't guarentee that we will be able to keep it at bay, it will at least give us a fighting chance.

Any problem with those arguments?

Southside

July 15th, 2013, 07:39 PM

That's because with Chicago you have to be tough on the the causes of crime, your going to need about 10 years worth of social programs to sort that out.

Much of that is red on red shootings, something which doesn't sell well. A school massacre on the other hand highlights the issue much more, people have more sympathy for children rather than a criminal.

70 kids under the age of 18 were killed in 2012. Of course its criminal on criminal crime, but it's also tons of innocents getting killed in the crossfire. Grandmothers sitting in their living rooms, children walking to school, people having picnics at parks. Where's the national outcry for those people? I think we tend to turn a blind eye to victims when they are minorities.

Tifa

July 15th, 2013, 07:43 PM

Harry Smith

July 16th, 2013, 09:53 AM

Forget about what even the constitution says about gun laws. Point being, yes guns are lethal, that's there whole function, to hurt. But you shouldn't blame the gun for killing a school full of kids, you blame the person who pulls the trigger. Same as you would with someone who is a drunk driver who kills someone. You don't blame the car, you blame the person. And even if there were gun restrictions, or gun laws, people will always find a way to hurt someone else. Its just a never ending cycle.

But a gun is a lot more effective, by your logic a nuclear bomb should be legal to own because it takes a person to set it off doesn't it?

Stronk Serb

July 17th, 2013, 07:01 AM

Forget about what even the constitution says about gun laws. Point being, yes guns are lethal, that's there whole function, to hurt. But you shouldn't blame the gun for killing a school full of kids, you blame the person who pulls the trigger. Same as you would with someone who is a drunk driver who kills someone. You don't blame the car, you blame the person. And even if there were gun restrictions, or gun laws, people will always find a way to hurt someone else. Its just a never ending cycle.

The US culture is based on violence and guns. Making guns illegal is stupid, but giving legally a gun to someone who does not know how to handle the responsibility of owning a gun is also stupid. For gun control, they should do thorough mental checks.

Castle of Glass

July 17th, 2013, 08:51 AM

Walter Powers

July 17th, 2013, 10:13 AM

Guns should not be illegal, if they were, then what would hunters do, what what would a huge industry do? Guns should be legal, but, especially in the US, there should be bigger and better background checks. The media *cough*fox news*cough* is making it look as if guns and video games are the problem. IN reality the problem are the people.

Fox News is the last station to be saying that guns and video games are the problem. It's the liberal media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) that's doing that.

Gigablue

July 17th, 2013, 11:37 AM

Statistics show thats guns do more good than harm (at least in America).

What good do guns do? The US has more gun crime than similar countries with stricter gun control laws.

Because of the current and past availibilty of guns they will never be gone and will by extent always be available to criminals who, if you've forgotten, do not follow the laws.

True, criminals don't follow the laws. However, if stricter gun control laws were enacted, the number of guns would decrease over time. This would make it harder for criminals, as well as everyone else, to get guns. The end result would be criminals having fewer guns.

Also, lets not forget, criminals can also buy their guns legally. By having guns so widely available, you make it easier or criminals to arm themselves.

Effectively gun control would either disarm law abiding citizes or turn the ones who chose to keep their guns into criminals.

There should be ways for people who genuinely need guns (for example hunters) to get them. However, the average person doesn't need a gun.

Specific examples, like school shootings, could be dealt with in a more dynamic way such as increasing general security (not necessarily arming teachers)

Or, you could decrease the number of guns.

Tyranny will always be a threat and although having guns doesn't guarentee that we will be able to keep it at bay, it will at least give us a fighting chance.

If you think you have a fighting chance of rising up against a tyrannical government, you're delusional. Do you think the American people would stand a chance agains the American army in a fight? Having guns gives you a false sense to security.

Castle of Glass

July 17th, 2013, 03:47 PM

Fox News is the last station to be saying that guns and video games are the problem. It's the liberal media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) that's doing that.

i just used it as an example. i meant it that the media was making them look bad. and mainly US media.

PerpetualImperfexion

July 18th, 2013, 02:50 PM

What good do guns do? The US has more gun crime than similar countries with stricter gun control laws.

Guns are used in self defense more often than they are to commit a crime.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

True, criminals don't follow the laws. However, if stricter gun control laws were enacted, the number of guns would decrease over time. This would make it harder for criminals, as well as everyone else, to get guns. The end result would be criminals having fewer guns.

Keyword: "fewer". Criminals would still have guns (if only a few) whereas law abiding citizens would not. There is no arguing against that.

Also, lets not forget, criminals can also buy their guns legally. By having guns so widely available, you make it easier or criminals to arm themselves.

It doesn't even matter. Statistically, guns do more good than harm in America. Why take it away from everyone when only a few people are the fuck ups?

There should be ways for people who genuinely need guns (for example hunters) to get them. However, the average person doesn't need a gun.

1. Why shouldn't the average person have one? I bet you if everyone had a gun a criminal wouldn't think twice about, for instance, robbing a home. What if everyone had had a gun when Holmes shot up that theatre. I suppose its unrealistic for everyone to have a gun, but what if a majority did?

2. What would stop a criminal from claiming to be a hunter? Maybe he decided he wanted to hunt humans.

Or, you could decrease the number of guns.

Again that is an awful solution. Like I said, it causes problems outside of the school environment.

If you think you have a fighting chance of rising up against a tyrannical government, you're delusional. Do you think the American people would stand a chance agains the American army in a fight? Having guns gives you a false sense to security.

Right, bending over and letting them do whatever they want is a much better alternative. People like me would be the first to go. Might as well go fighting.

Also the point was that a tyranical government would almost certainly make an effort to take your weapons. They could get by without it, but it sure would make their life easier.

ids_happening

July 18th, 2013, 05:20 PM

What good do guns do? The US has more gun crime than similar countries with stricter gun control laws.

True, criminals don't follow the laws. However, if stricter gun control laws were enacted, the number of guns would decrease over time. This would make it harder for criminals, as well as everyone else, to get guns. The end result would be criminals having fewer guns.

Also, lets not forget, criminals can also buy their guns legally. By having guns so widely available, you make it easier or criminals to arm themselves.

There should be ways for people who genuinely need guns (for example hunters) to get them. However, the average person doesn't need a gun.

Or, you could decrease the number of guns.

If you think you have a fighting chance of rising up against a tyrannical government, you're delusional. Do you think the American people would stand a chance agains the American army in a fight? Having guns gives you a false sense to security.

94% of guns used in crime are illegal. 99.9% of guns are not used in violent crime. Guns do give people a fighting chance against the government. American soldiers would be less than eager to kill fellow Americans. Citizens outnumber soldiers 74 to 1. No, 1 on 1 an American soldier would be much better in combat. But the citizens outnumber the soldiers 71 to one. The US citizens would have to use alternate tactics to win, but would still win.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler

Jenny jr

July 24th, 2013, 04:00 PM

Guns should not be made illegal. Personally that would change my life in a bad way because I love to hunt.

Slippers

September 5th, 2013, 04:08 PM

In my opinion guns should be banned. I really don't think there's a place for such weapons in a modern society.

Twilly F. Sniper

September 5th, 2013, 06:09 PM

In my opinion, we actually need MORE rights to them. Gun laws will only help criminals is the actual truth of the matter.

Stronk Serb

September 6th, 2013, 01:30 AM

In my opinion, we actually need MORE rights to them. Gun laws will only help criminals is the actual truth of the matter.

Let the gun laws stay what they are. The police should be doing their job, to protect the people.

Twilly F. Sniper

September 6th, 2013, 06:39 AM

Let the gun laws stay what they are. The police should be doing their job, to protect the people.

I am, but only with the laws of a few places. Gun bans as the 1st user posting on this page said should be done, are really outrageous was what I attempted to get across.

britishboy

September 6th, 2013, 09:45 AM

not illegal but controlled more

CosmicNoodle

September 6th, 2013, 09:49 AM

I dont thiunk they should be made illegal, for a lot of people they are a hobby not a weapon.
But i do think that the law should be very strict about it, i live in Britain and have been shooting before and really enjoyed myself doing so, hear in Britain guns are not illegal but they are hard to get, this means people who want to use them for recreational purposes can do so but it also means that not every hill billy with a broken mind can get one.
In 16 years i have never heard of anyone within 100 miles of me killed by a gun, how about you?

Synyster Shadows

September 6th, 2013, 02:49 PM

The rate of gun related homicide doesn't bother me. The simple truth is this: If the bad guys want guns, they will get the guns.

Yes, it will be harder. No, it will not stop it.
Furthermore, if you take away the gun other related crimes will rise. Knives, baseball bats, kitchen appliances. If someone wants you dead, they will use any means to kill you.

All it will really do is force the good, honest citizens to turn in their primary form of self defense against home invaders and assault. Women carry handguns to protect themselves against assailants. Men keep guns of various kinds in their homes to protect from intruders.

And if nothing else, it is our constitutional right to bear arms. You can not take away our constitutional rights. If nothing else, that right allows us to protect ourselves from evil- foreign or domestic.

---

Edit: I am however in favor of stricter preliminary checks before purchase of a weapon, though.

I agree with this. I had to do a persuasive paper in 7th grade and then I was leaning towards stricter gun laws but now I see that it might not have been the right idea. I did, however, support more thorough background checks for those attempting to get a license to carry firearms. You're absolutely right - the laws might only be a problem. The criminals will definitely use whatever they can get their hands on to assault someone. Besides, let's say someone comes at me only wielding a baseball bat and nothing else, whereas I have a concealed pistol in a holster on my hip. I think it's pretty obvious that I'd have the distance advantage because the attacker would have to come into close quarters to register a hit whereas I just have to draw my pistol and take aim; I could be 10 or 15 feet away and I'd be able to get an easy hit on the guy. I definitely think that guns should be kept legal and that stricter background checks are necessary.