Guns

[The Joker]

Since Dustin's thread got deleted, I want to see if anyone has an intelligent position on guns.

How old should you be to have them? What situation should you use them in? Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns?

[drumir93]

How old should you be to have them? I would say 21
What situation should you use them in? Protection and hunting
Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns? I would argue yes, though I do believe in the right to bear arms.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

ok, i think that there is no appropriate age, but you should have to take a test before you can buy one.

appropriate uses would be self defence, hunting and going to a shooting range.

i dont think americans are obsesed with guns, or that anyone who owns a gun is a serial killer, its just those few who take it too far that give america a bad image.

[The Batman]

I think children should be taught gun safety if there are guns in the house but i don't think they should be given to anyone under the age of 18. Also I believe that gun control should be more strict. Which includes them having to be checked once a year by the police department and that if you do own a gun they must be kept in a locked box in a safe place away from children. Americans are obsessed with guns

[theOperaGhost]

How old should you be to have them? I'd say at least 14 for hunting. To be able to use them, you should have to take hunters ed as well as some sort of gun safety exam. This would also have to limit the caliber and power of the gun, too, until you are 18. I say this because I think hunting is one of the greatest bonding times for teens and fathers. I also think shooting for sport is a very good thing.

What situation should you use them in? Hunting, shooting ranges, protection

Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns? Americans love their guns. I'm not going to lie...I love guns. Do I think they are too obsessed? No...I simply think that Americans are overly possessive of any of their possessions, including guns. Americans obsess over all of their possessions...cloths, cars, phones, computers, TVs, etc, etc, etc...I don't think it's guns we're obsessed with.

Out of myself, my friends, and my family members, I don't know a single person who would use their guns on a person. We all own hunting rifles and shotguns for sport.

However, it is people like <Please don't name anyone specifically ~Empty Misery> who give American gun owners a bad reputation. It's quite sad really. I can assure you that he is a minority among the true, proud American gun owners. We aren't all lunatics like that.

[nick]

It would be better if no one was allowed to have them, they should be kept locked away in gun clubs. And to the obsessed question, yes I do think that.

[Sage]

How old should you be to have them? At least fourteen for hunting, but I don't believe 14 year olds should be able to personally own or purchase a gun of their own. A safety course and test should also be in place to give someone their permit. Certain limits/regulations and stuff apply, of course. At 18, there should be another test before someone can get a full gun permit.

What situation should you use them in? Hunting (Even though I choose not to hunt personally), sport (shooting range) and self-defense.

Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns? Naw, man. Guns are awesome.

It would be better if no one was allowed to have them, they should be kept locked away in gun clubs. And to the obsessed question, yes I do think that.

Dude, if you take guns away from everybody, people are just gonna throw bricks instead. It's pointless.

[nick]

Dude, if you take guns away from everybody, people are just gonna throw bricks instead. It's pointless.
Bricks dont accidentally go off, a little kid cant easily get killed playing with a brick, the chances of survival are much higher. I'll take the bricks every time. Our society is very much safer for the fact that our gun laws are so tight and I would not want it any other way.

[Sapphire]

Yes, I do think that Americans are obsessed with guns.

I don't believe that people should be allowed guns - unless they use them at a shooting range, to hunt or have occupational reasons for doing so, in which case they should have somewhere secure where they store the gun(s). I also believe that if someone fails to store their gun properly and securely, then they should have some form of disciplinary action taken against them.

Owning a gun and educating children on gun safety do not automatically make you or your family safer - see http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Comparisons between the USA and the UK and their approaches to gun control are made here: http://www.guncrime.org/today.html

IMHO, it's clear that the UK have a better attitude towards guns and gun crime than the USA when the USA have so many more police officers who are killed by guns in comparison to the UK.

Bricks dont accidentally go off, a little kid cant easily get killed playing with a brick, the chances of survival are much higher. I'll take the bricks every time. Our society is very much safer for the fact that our gun laws are so tight and I would not want it any other way.
QFT!

[theOperaGhost]

Bricks dont accidentally go off, a little kid cant easily get killed playing with a brick, the chances of survival are much higher. I'll take the bricks every time. Our society is very much safer for the fact that our gun laws are so tight and I would not want it any other way.

If people weren't dumbasses, guns wouldn't accidentally go off. Why the fuck would you keep a loaded gun around little kids? Of course little kids are going to play with them. That's why you don't leave them loaded, you leave the safety on, and you lock them away from kids. It's not that hard to do. If kids are taught from a young age how to properly handle guns, it also wouldn't be a problem. In North Dakota, parents teach their kids how to properly handle them. Does that mean tragedies don't happen? No. About a year ago two little boys were playing with a gun and one shot the other. Accidents happen...it's part of life. Driving cars is more dangerous than guns though. Compare the deaths...more people die from car accidents than gun shot wounds...I haven't actually looked up statistics, but I'm willing to bet on it. If guns would be outlawed, we might as well outlaw motor vehicles too, because they are more dangerous and can do a lot more harm.

Guns are great things until they get into the wrong hands.

[The Batman]

I really don't see wy people would want to own guns other than for a collection or hunting. You don't need a gun to protect yourself you just need a good ass security system.

[Sapphire]

If people weren't dumbasses, guns wouldn't accidentally go off. Why the fuck would you keep a loaded gun around little kids? Of course little kids are going to play with them. That's why you don't leave them loaded, you leave the safety on, and you lock them away from kids.Those precautions are taken in about one third of American homes where guns are owned. (See the first link in my previous post)
It's not that hard to do. If kids are taught from a young age how to properly handle guns, it also wouldn't be a problem.Again, I direct you to the first link in my previous post. Even with a good education on gun safety, children and teenagers still touch and play with guns.
Accidents happen...it's part of life.Yes, accidents happen. But does that mean that something as non-essential as guns should be allowed in every household? Driving cars is more dangerous than guns though.That is true, but one is essential and the other isn't. One is primarily a destructive weapon and the other is primarily a form of transport. People die from horse riding but that doesn't make a horse a weapon - the same goes for modern vehicles.

Guns are great things until they get into the wrong hands.The right hands can quickly become the wrong hands though, so how does one draw the line?
A man could be an upstanding member of the public who doesn't as much as speed on the motorway. But if he catches his wife in the act of having sex with another person, he would be perfectly capable of killing both of them in an instant if he had a gun in the house.

Put someone in a very emotionally charged situation, arm them with a gun and they can very easily become a murderer.
So, how does one draw the line between the "right hands" and the "wrong hands"?
And how would that line be represented in the law?

[nick]

Driving cars is more dangerous than guns though. Compare the deaths...more people die from car accidents than gun shot wounds...I haven't actually looked up statistics, but I'm willing to bet on it. If guns would be outlawed, we might as well outlaw motor vehicles too, because they are more dangerous and can do a lot more harm.


That is true, but one is essential and the other isn't. One is primarily a destructive weapon and the other is primarily a form of transport.
Yes, my thought exacty. One is actually designed to kill, that is its purpose, the other is designed as a convenient method of getting around. Quite a big difference.

If you own a car your purpose is transport, if you own a gun your purpose is shooting.

[theOperaGhost]

Those precautions are taken in about one third of American homes where guns are owned. (See the first link in my previous post)
Again, I direct you to the first link in my previous post. Even with a good education on gun safety, children and teenagers still touch and play with guns.
Yes, accidents happen. But does that mean that something as non-essential as guns should be allowed in every household? That is true, but one is essential and the other isn't. One is primarily a destructive weapon and the other is primarily a form of transport. People die from horse riding but that doesn't make a horse a weapon - the same goes for modern vehicles.

The right hands can quickly become the wrong hands though, so how does one draw the line?
A man could be an upstanding member of the public who doesn't as much as speed on the motorway. But if he catches his wife in the act of having sex with another person, he would be perfectly capable of killing both of them in an instant if he had a gun in the house.

Put someone in a very emotionally charged situation, arm them with a gun and they can very easily become a murderer.
So, how does one draw the line between the "right hands" and the "wrong hands"?
And how would that line be represented in the law?

A man catches his wife with another man and he's going to kill him whether he has a gun or not and that is justifiable by law and would generally drop a charge from murder to manslaughter.

If I caught another man with my wife I wouldn't do him the favor of shooting him...I would be the shit out of him until he died or find a knife. He would be wishing I had a gun instead.

People worry about guns way too much.

And Nick...if you own a gun, your purpose isn't necessarily shooting. Many people collect and display them in their homes; generally not even having the ammunition for the gun...they obviously don't own it for shooting. There are also such things as shooting ranges and target practice. And finally, there is hunting. There are VERY few people who actually own a gun for the purpose of shooting people...mainly just gang members.

[Sapphire]

A man catches his wife with another man and he's going to kill him whether he has a gun or not and that is justifiable by law and would generally drop a charge from murder to manslaughter.Tell me, since when has every man who catches his wife with another man killed him? Since when has every man reacted in the same way to any given situation?
Just because you would kill him doesn't mean that every man would.

Also, in this country, no longer can someone claim that in the heat of the moment they stopped being sane and that caused them to murder another. So, regardless of whether the victim was having an affair or swearing at the offender, they will be charged with murder.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4419708.ece
It is a very welcome move, I feel, as it sends out the message that failing to control ones emotions is not an excuse.

I believe that the insanity plea is a very rarely used defense (less than 1% of cases) in the USA anyway and that only about 25% of cases that use such a defense are successful. Since this is so rarely successful, why are you asserting it as common enough to warrant the use of the term "generally"?
If I caught another man with my wife I wouldn't do him the favor of shooting him...I would be the shit out of him until he died or find a knife. He would be wishing I had a gun instead.Again, just because you would react like that doesn't mean that everyone else will.
However, it is common sense that if a man is in that situation and has quick access to a gun then he is more likely to commit murder than a man who doesn't have quick access to such a weapon.

People worry about guns way too much.They can snatch the life right out of someone without much effort at all. Don't you see why people worry about guns?

And Nick...if you own a gun, your purpose isn't necessarily shooting. Many people collect and display them in their homes; generally not even having the ammunition for the gun...they obviously don't own it for shooting. There are also such things as shooting ranges and target practice. And finally, there is hunting. There are VERY few people who actually own a gun for the purpose of shooting people...mainly just gang members.
A gun is primarily a weapon. Whether you use it as such or not is another matter.
No one would argue that a baseball bat is primarily a piece of sports equipment, would they? But that doesn't stop someone doing something else with it like putting it up for display or using it to beat someone with.
A car is primarily a method of transportation. It can, however, be showcased, raced or used as a weapon against someone.
See my point?

[2D]

How old should you be to have them? I say around around 15 to use them for hunting and sport with adult supervision.
What situation should you use them in? Hunting, sport, and self defense. (As a last resort)
Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns? Not all. Not by a long shot. In the North and South there are more gun obsessed owners. Not so much in the Midwest and the East and West coast.

As I said before we have many guns in our house and in the shed out back. I would guess somewhere between 15-25 total. We only have that many because my grandfather was a tail gunner in WWII.

[INFERNO]

I think you should be at least 18-years old to own a gun and pass suitable psychological test(s). The main purposes of the gun is pretty simple, either it's for hunting, protection, collecting or using at a shooting range. I don't think America as a whole is too obsessed about guns but rather that some people are very obsessed and that group tarnishes the view people have on Americans. Although the law allows for the right to bear arms, not all people actually do have guns in their house but I think that having that law and having a group of people that own many guns is what gives people a view that Americans are obsessed with guns. Some people also have a gun simply for home-security and not for anything else. It's along the lines of having a club in your house for protection; you hope you don't need to use it but if the time comes, then you'd use it.

A problem with owning guns in a house with kids is that even in the hands of an infant, a loaded gun is lethal. If an infant has, say a brick, then it cannot hurt you that much although it can do some damage to itself but nothing too severe. In the case of a gun, the infant can blow a limb off or just kill itself or kill you by accident. So while I think guns can be beneficial, there are numerous risks involved. As I mentioned before about using psychological testing, hopefully it can show who is more at risk of being an idiot and screwing around with a gun or using it to shoot up people.

With respect to the comparison to a car, the purpose of a car is transportation. It's a big, bulky, heavy, fast-moving metal can and so if you get in the way of it then you're obviously in grave peril but its risk is a by-product of its intended purpose. A gun on the other hand is meant for shooting. You can argue that people may collect guns but that isn't the purpose of a gun, it's what some people choose to do with the gun.

[theOperaGhost]

"Just because you would kill him doesn't mean that every man would."

You say this so many times.....

Just because you assume that anyone with a gun is going to suddenly snap and go on a shooting spree doesn't mean that everyone with a gun would.

A person who finds their spouse cheating on them has adequate provocation to kill...this is provocation by paramour. It's not a defense, it's an extenuating circumstance. Courts usually apply an objective test of cooling-off time; that is, would a reasonable person under the same circumstances have had time to cool off? If defendants had a reasonable time for their murderous rage to subside, the law views their killings as murders even if the provocations were adequate to reduce those killings to manslaughter had they taken place immediately following the provocations.

Cool-off time varies greatly, from a few seconds or minutes to a day or more. Take this case for instance: State v. Flory. Flory's wife told him her father had raped her. The court ruled that Flory's passion hadn't reasonably cooled even after he walked all night to his father-in-law's house and killed him the next day.

Anyway, going back to guns...if a person wants to kill someone, they will kill someone whether they have a gun or not. In 1991, about 27% of murders didn't involve guns. In 2001, that percentage remained the same (in the US). Since about 2.4 million people die each year in the US, the total deaths caused by firearms is extremely small, about 1.2%. In 2001, there were 29,573 deaths caused by firearms.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I don't see the point in owning a gun. If you want to hunt then hunt, but I don't see the point in owning a gun. Are you that insecure about where you live, that you need to carry a shotgun in and around your home?

[Sapphire]

"Just because you would kill him doesn't mean that every man would."

You say this so many times.....I say it because it is true. And yet you still stand by assertions like the following: "A man catches his wife with another man and he's going to kill him whether he has a gun or not and that is justifiable by law and would generally drop a charge from murder to manslaughter."

All that does is illustrate your apparent inability to acknowledge that different people react differently in any given situation.

Just because you assume that anyone with a gun is going to suddenly snap and go on a shooting spree doesn't mean that everyone with a gun would.I don't assume that anyone with a gun is going to kill people. I have simply asserted that owning a gun makes it more likely that someone will commit murder when in an emotionally charged situation. The following demonstrates that: "However, it is common sense that if a man is in that situation and has quick access to a gun then he is more likely to commit murder than a man who doesn't have quick access to such a weapon."

A person who finds their spouse cheating on them has adequate provocation to kill...this is provocation by paramour. It's not a defense, it's an extenuating circumstance. Courts usually apply an objective test of cooling-off time; that is, would a reasonable person under the same circumstances have had time to cool off? If defendants had a reasonable time for their murderous rage to subside, the law views their killings as murders even if the provocations were adequate to reduce those killings to manslaughter had they taken place immediately following the provocations.

Cool-off time varies greatly, from a few seconds or minutes to a day or more. Take this case for instance: State v. Flory. Flory's wife told him her father had raped her. The court ruled that Flory's passion hadn't reasonably cooled even after he walked all night to his father-in-law's house and killed him the next day.This is where I disagree greatly with American law and stand by the stance of British law on this topic.

Anyway, going back to guns...if a person wants to kill someone, they will kill someone whether they have a gun or not. In 1991, about 27% of murders didn't involve guns. In 2001, that percentage remained the same (in the US). Since about 2.4 million people die each year in the US, the total deaths caused by firearms is extremely small, about 1.2%. In 2001, there were 29,573 deaths caused by firearms.If in 1991 about 27% of murders didn't involve guns then that must leave about 72% that did involve guns.
So, if your stats are to be believed, over 70% of murders that occurred in both 1991 and 2001 involved a gun.
How is this, in any way, a positive thing and how does it support your argument?

And where is your supporting evidence for your argument that they would use something else if they couldn't kill someone with a gun?
I'm intrigued since you seem to strongly believe it so please, show me something that supports it.

The following table shows that guns were by far the most common method of committing murder in the USA between 1976 and 2005. So although gun-related deaths account for 1% of all deaths (even natural ones) in the USA, they account for a much larger percentage of all homicides in the USA.
Also, upon observing it, you can clearly see that gun-related homicides weren't the same in 2001 as they were in 1991, so where did you get your statistics from?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
Are you that insecure about where you live, that you need to carry a shotgun in and around your home?
I'm in complete agreement with this!

[theOperaGhost]

In 1991, 24,700 were murdered, 17,986 of which were gun related. In 2001, 16,037 were murdered, 11,671 of which were gun related. Along with gun related deaths dropping, murder rates also dropped.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

Yes, I am well aware that people react differently.

Do you know where America got their law? English Common Law...apparently Britain has revised their laws, but it originated there.

I think over 1/4 of all murders not involving firearms is astounding the way everyone is talking here. The way everyone is making it sound, only people with guns murder. This proves that wrong.

[Sapphire]

Yes, I am well aware that people react differently.Well, you could have fooled me by saying the following.
A man catches his wife with another man and he's going to kill him whether he has a gun or not and that is justifiable by law and would generally drop a charge from murder to manslaughter.

Do you know where America got their law? English Common Law...apparently Britain has revised their laws, but it originated there.I was aware of that. But, both laws have changed at least slightly since. And I'm glad that after a four year investigation into that aspect of law resulted in the reform last year.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4419708.ece

I think over 1/4 of all murders not involving firearms is astounding the way everyone is talking here. The way everyone is making it sound, only people with guns murder. This proves that wrong.No one has said or even implied that only people with guns murder.
The fact that over 72% of all murders in the USA involved guns is disgusting. But you will all passionately cling onto your precious "right to bear arms" and use that shocking statistic as justification for your need to own a gun to "protect" your family.

[Maverick]

I don't see the point in owning a gun. If you want to hunt then hunt, but I don't see the point in owning a gun. Are you that insecure about where you live, that you need to carry a shotgun in and around your home?
Ask yourself that question the next time someone breaks into your house. When I lived in California it happened and the best thing my mom could have was a 9mm. There are a lot of crazy and sick people in this world. You need to protect yourself because law abiding citizens you want to disarm aren't the ones you want to worry about.

[Sapphire]

There are a lot of crazy and sick people in this world. You need to protect yourself because law abiding citizens you want to disarm aren't the ones you want to worry about.
See what I mean? Using the occurrence of crime to justify passionately clinging to your "right" to own a gun because you need it to "protect" yourself and your family.

[Maverick]

See what I mean? Using the occurrence of crime to justify passionately clinging to your "right" to own a gun because you need it to "protect" yourself and your family.
What's your point?

[Bougainvillea]

If Matt had read my post and considered my past he'd realise I was not only being sarcastic, but I'm not a fan of guns. Guns we own are display guns, to recognise our family's involvement with certain military activities, and public services. I understand the use of guns is, sadly, inevitable.

I think the age limit should be 18. And I think anyone who applies to own a gun should undergo certain mental evaluations. There are plenty of obvious situations in which gun use can be necessary. And I think hunting is also unnecessary. Killing animals for entertainment is sadly popular. Unless you're hunting to provide food for your family, I think it should be...I don't know. But I'm most certainly not going to allow my child access to an assault rifle. I do understand how people would carry guns in their house as a sense of security. You never know. Anything could happen. But when people "take out their AK's" it's just taking it too far.

[Lily of the Valley]

I'd like to see guns banned entirely. I live in a very conservative area where everyone has guns, and I've never seen any good come from it. I've never heard of anyone's life being saved by having a gun - but I do know of murders, robberies, even the school shooting at my school years ago. The kid wasn't crazy, his dad wasn't crazy (took guns from his arsenal). Fact of the matter is anyone with a gun can use it in the wrong way.

~Maggot

[Rainstorm]

I don't see the need to own a gun, to be honest.

If you think about it, guns are only needed for protection, sport (hunting and the shooting range), and for law enforcement. Yet, people feel the need to own a shotgun. What reason do you need that powerful of a gun? That would only be used at hunting, and even then, you don't need that kind of weapon.

I can see the need for a weapon as defense, like Ant said, but, you only need some small fire arm. Yet, some people have these overpriced, gigantic hunks of metal, where, if they are careless and have kids, can end up causing injury, or a fatality.

So, yeah. I can see the right to own a gun, but only something like a .22 or something. Nothing bigger.

[The Joker]

I think it's fine if you area has a problem with people breaking in, and it's not a big gun. You don't need a fucking rifle to stop a robber in close range.

[Rainstorm]

I think it's fine if you area has a problem with people breaking in, and it's not a big gun. You don't need a fucking rifle to stop a robber in close range.

So true.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Ask yourself that question the next time someone breaks into your house. When I lived in California it happened and the best thing my mom could have was a 9mm. There are a lot of crazy and sick people in this world. You need to protect yourself because law abiding citizens you want to disarm aren't the ones you want to worry about.

I don't doubt that ant. But do you really need a gun in a place like, greenich or however you spell it, CT.

[theOperaGhost]

I don't doubt that ant. But do you really need a gun in a place like, greenich or however you spell it, CT.

Ever heard of Martha Moxley?

[nick]

If you shoot someone who breaks into your house in the uk you will either be done for murder (if you kill them) or grevious bodily harm if you dont. This culture of shoot first, ask questions later, is sick. Are you still living in the wild west or what? Dont you feel any urge to join the 21st century?

[Cloud]

Guns are good for 2 things
stopping the other guy with a gun shooting you
and to model games on

you dont need a gun (or a knife seeing as thats a common thing in england) to protect yourself
just a strong punch or dam good running legs

If kids were taught how to use guns then it would probably create larger problems in that thyd know how to use it and would be more tempted to use one

i think 21 would be a good age because you still always have stupid people who are going to do stupid things but hopefully by 21 theyll be mature enough to not fuck around
One of my brothers friends tried to shoot a bus with an air rifle
hes like 3 years older than me and he tried that so it jsuts shows how immature and completely ignorant people can actually be


If you shoot someone who breaks into your house in the uk you will either be done for murder (if you kill them) or grevious bodily harm if you dont. This culture of shoot first, ask questions later, is sick. Are you still living in the wild west or what? Dont you feel any urge to join the 21st century?

Youd be alot more scary charging at them with a cricket bat than aiming a gun in the dark
and you wont get in as much trouble with the law for beating them down with a bat

[The Batman]

If you shoot someone who breaks into your house in the uk you will either be done for murder (if you kill them) or grevious bodily harm if you dont. This culture of shoot first, ask questions later, is sick. Are you still living in the wild west or what? Dont you feel any urge to join the 21st century? I agree with having guns for protection or any other reason as long as they are in a place where a child can't get to it easily. So shooting someone for breaking in your house isn't going back to the wild wild west it's protecting your family from an intruder who might be there to steal your things or to kill them. I believe in situations like that you should do whatever you have to do to protect your family and if it means taking the life of someone who comes in with intention unknown to you then do it. You don't know what they have they could have a gun too so shoot first ask questions later is appropriate when it comes to protecting your family.

[Cloud]

I agree with having guns for protection or any other reason as long as they are in a place where a child can't get to it easily. So shooting someone for breaking in your house isn't going back to the wild wild west it's protecting your family from an intruder who might be there to steal your things or to kill them. I believe in situations like that you should do whatever you have to do to protect your family and if it means taking the life of someone who comes in with intention unknown to you then do it. You don't know what they have they could have a gun too so shoot first ask questions later is appropriate when it comes to protecting your family.

why is it so necessary to kill them
why not just injure them? shoot em in the arm or something
and then if they try to pull out a gun
then shoot em again
but really
shooting them straight away to kill for breaking in is stupid
shooting to injure
go for it
but im still choosing the big metal pole in the other room

[The Batman]

I said do what you have to do and i used killing as an example but in all honesty i would rather you make it so they aren't leaving the house without a stretcher.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Ever heard of Martha Moxley?

One person, should not make you feel as though you need a gun... If it was like L.A where gangs are prevelant then by all means own one.

[nick]

I said do what you have to do and i used killing as an example but in all honesty i would rather you make it so they aren't leaving the house without a stretcher.
But the point is if you have guns in the house that becomes less likely.

The intruders, thiefs, call them whatever, have to carry a gun because they assume the residents will have one. It just escalates everything.

[The Batman]

No they carry a gun for intimidation and to make sure that if there are any problems they can solve it quick.

[chazzrox2]

in england i guess its a lot different, i am completely against guns except for defence of livestock with a test and licence

eg. farmers basically an even then only like a shotgun or rifle

I think it's fine if you area has a problem with people breaking in, and it's not a big gun. You don't need a fucking rifle to stop a robber in close range.

not a big gun? a gun is a gun and it can still people.

[Cloud]

why not just have an air rifle
hurts a whole lot and less chance of actaully killing someone
and they can do alot of damage

if you have a gun for protection
as soon as you kill someone its not for protection
if you have one for protection
use it as such
including any and all life
so why take a life when its not necessary?

[chazzrox2]

i don't want to go into the whole animal rights thing, but we are superior and if (as a farmer) a fox was about to kill part of your salary/work/even was
y of life? you shoot it.

but i get it about an air rifle, i see absolutely no problem with using a non-lethal weapon

[Cloud]

yea my second point was about using guns on people
if you use it to kill
your no longer protecting life

[chazzrox2]

okay i guess we are in complete agreement then...sorry i just thought u were one of those about the animal thing lol

ps. i am NOT a farmer, but no offense to them.

[JackOfClubs]

Do you think Americans are too obsessed with guns?
Yes.

I see no reason to own a gun unless you hunt. Or unless the area you live in is prone to break-ins, then a small handgun for safety is ok. Other than that, there is no real reason to own one, in my view.

[Perseus]

Where I live, it's a law to own a gun, but we don't have any actual guns in our house, lol..
But anyway, I think 18 or 21 is a good age to own a gun, and 13ish to hunt with a gun because rifle have lots of recoil and such.

I don't think Americans are obsessed with guns. I see nothing wrong with having a gun for protective purposes, hunting, collecting them, or for a firing range. And plus, in America if someone breaks into your house, you can only shoot at them if you are fearing for your life. If they run away and you shoot, you can get arrested and such.
I think rifles and pistols are fine to own for hunting and protective purposes, and assault rifles and snipers for shooting range and collections, but pulling out an M24 or M4A1 on someone who breaks into your house is kind of insane..

[The Joker]

If someone broke into my house, I'd hit them with a pan until they are have lost conciousness, then call the cops.

[Cloud]

If someone broke into my house, I'd hit them with a pan until they are have lost conciousness, then call the cops.

exactly
killing isnt necessary
just because you can
doesnt mean you should
or you have to
so why do it

[Perseus]

If someone broke into my house, I'd hit them with a pan until they are have lost conciousness, then call the cops.

What if they are armed to the teeth, and you have no way of approaching them?

I actually forgot something in my other post..
I'd shoot to maime, I couldn't see myself ever killing someone..

[Cloud]

What if they are armed to the teeth, and you have no way of approaching them?

then stay the fuck away and call the cops
why would someone come into a house with enough weaponry for a small army anyway?

in england we have police units that are armed
they have Guns
do they use them
nope
they have tazers and batons
and beanbag shotguns

so if they can restrain themselves from shooting the shit out of someone to make their day at work that lil bit shorter
why cant Americans go to the trouble of buying a non lethal weapon that still protects there family without fucking up lives

any firearm has the potential to kill
so why risk it

[sebbie]

I personally think that guns should only be used for defence of yourself/family/property or in a controlled environment eg. hunting/shooting range.

There of course needs to be strict control on who buys/sells/owns guns. Police, should know who has what. I know that in the UK you have to apply for a license to purchase a gun and there are strict background checks, usually police will check round to see where you plan to store the gun.

[TheKingDavis]

However, it is people like <Please don't name anyone specifically ~Empty Misery> who give American gun owners a bad reputation. It's quite sad really. I can assure you that he is a minority among the true, proud American gun owners. We aren't all lunatics like that.

im a gun lunatic? no. I have been trained in the use of firearms and i know exactly what they are for

[Perseus]

why would someone come into a house with enough weaponry for a small army anyway?

I don't know. I was just adding to the debate.
I mean, America isn't that safe of a place as the U.K. But, it's not like police here use their gun like every day. Police barely use their gun. They can use ASPs, pepper spray, or tasers, if they have them.

[The Batman]

then stay the fuck away and call the cops
why would someone come into a house with enough weaponry for a small army anyway?

in england we have police units that are armed
they have Guns
do they use them
nope
they have tazers and batons
and beanbag shotguns

so if they can restrain themselves from shooting the shit out of someone to make their day at work that lil bit shorter
why cant Americans go to the trouble of buying a non lethal weapon that still protects there family without fucking up lives

any firearm has the potential to kill
so why risk it
Before I say anything I just want to make it clear for everyone that I'm not promoting people to go out and get a gun to protect yourself because really I'm not a fan of them at all I've witnessed gun violence(which I won't give any details about unless I have to) however I do feel a need to explain a bit in calum's post.

Calum the thing about fucking up lives is that those people came into our house trying to commit a crime either to steal or to possibly do harm to someone in the house. They came in planning to fuck up something already and you're not doing anything but protecting the people inside of your house from an intruder who came to do something wrong. I would be more comfortable with the asshole getting shot in the leg to make sure he won't get away when the cops come but really pepper spray isn't always going to work and with tasers you either have to be real close to them or if it's a taser gun you better hope that one shot hits them. Still it doesn't mean that a gun is better to use but it just means that it's more effective in some cases.

[Rutherford The Brave]

"Since for him the spinal cord will surely suffice."

[TheKingDavis]

Ask yourself that question the next time someone breaks into your house. When I lived in California it happened and the best thing my mom could have was a 9mm. There are a lot of crazy and sick people in this world. You need to protect yourself because law abiding citizens you want to disarm aren't the ones you want to worry about.

Exactly!

Lets use Australia as an example.
They say No More Guns!
They have video of people going and having their guns destroyed (THOSE ARE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS)

But do you think that gang members, mafia, drug cartels, etc are just going to say "well boys thats it, we gotta turn our guns in, no more guns"

HELL NO!

You are taking firearms from the wrong people! Law abiding citizens dont use their guns for killing people. the people who arent turning in their guns are shooting people!

Murders with firearms didnt even drop that drastically

Anyone that knows how to use a gun for the right purpose should be allowed to own one.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I don't think anyone can ever handle a gun, it's an issue when your angry, it's a issue when your jealous, it's an issue when something goes wrong. We as humans, aren't mentally capable of holding something that can kill anyone, and I mean anyone. That kind if power is how some say "Like playing god."

[Cloud]

I don't think anyone can ever handle a gun, it's an issue when your angry, it's a issue when your jealous, it's an issue when something goes wrong. We as humans, aren't mentally capable of holding something that can kill anyone, and I mean anyone. That kind if power is how some say "Like playing god."

exactly my thoughts
its one split second that sends the impulse to pull the trigger

one teeny tiny bad decision in the wrong frame of mind

and boom
dead

[Rutherford The Brave]

And for the rest of you don't tell that, that would never happen. Because it surely has happened before, people have killed in the midst of being blinded by rage. We should not put a gun in someone's hand, it isn't a citizens job to use their gun, guns don't make situations better. "Oh hey look! Those gangsters are shooting out those old ladies, let me just take out my gun." No, just no.

[TheKingDavis]

I don't think anyone can ever handle a gun, it's an issue when your angry, it's a issue when your jealous, it's an issue when something goes wrong. We as humans, aren't mentally capable of holding something that can kill anyone, and I mean anyone. That kind if power is how some say "Like playing god."

exactly my thoughts
its one split second that sends the impulse to pull the trigger

one teeny tiny bad decision in the wrong frame of mind

and boom
dead

not everyone uses them for bad purposes like you 2 think,

i would use one for my self defense, a gangster breaks in my house?
BOOM
hes already packing, so why take the chance of losing my life?

if its a life threatening instance, guns should be used for self defense

[Rutherford The Brave]

not everyone uses them for bad purposes like you 2 think,

i would use one for my self defense, a gangster breaks in my house?
BOOM
hes already packing, so why take the chance of losing my life?

if its a life threatening instance, guns should be used for self defense

Let me give you a hypothetical situation then. Gangsters, maybe 10 of them rush your house. You decide hey I'll defend myself. So you open fire, and so do they. None of the gangsters are hit, your ok but the neighbors kids are dead. Are you seriously going to tell the parents well, I had to defend myself. Odds are too they wont shot if you don't shot first.

[Lily of the Valley]

Exactly!

Lets use Australia as an example.
They say No More Guns!
They have video of people going and having their guns destroyed (THOSE ARE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS)

But do you think that gang members, mafia, drug cartels, etc are just going to say "well boys thats it, we gotta turn our guns in, no more guns"

HELL NO!

You are taking firearms from the wrong people! Law abiding citizens dont use their guns for killing people. the people who arent turning in their guns are shooting people!

Murders with firearms didnt even drop that drastically

Anyone that knows how to use a gun for the right purpose should be allowed to own one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

Let's take a look at the murder rate difference between the US and Australia, shall we? Guns are almost nowhere to be found, and gun-related homicides are pretty much unheard of. Granted, I'm not saying that's the only reason for the difference in homicide rates, 'cause it certainly isn't. But it's pretty bad when you're supporting guns and use Australia as an example.

Gun laws aren't mean for gangs, mafia, drug cartels, etc. They're meant for average people who get pissed, get drunk, get depressed and go kill someone. Let me give you a hypothetical situation then. Gangsters, maybe 10 of them rush your house. You decide hey I'll defend myself. So you open fire, and so do they. None of the gangsters are hit, your ok but the neighbors kids are dead. Are you seriously going to tell the parents well, I had to defend myself. Odds are too they wont shot if you don't shot first.Break-ins are rarely perpetrated by gangs. Usually it's just average people, and they're certainly not all armed. Chances are there's probably fewer that aren't armed with guns than those that are. And, since they're average people, almost none of them would have guns if they were banned. So the homeowners wouldn't need guns to protect themselves, now would they?

~Maggot

[TheKingDavis]

You didnt say why the neighbors kids are dead, or how they died, i couldnt have shot them.

in my real life scenerio, there arent any kids for 4 houses down to the left, and 8 to the right

[Rutherford The Brave]

You didnt say why the neighbors kids are dead, or how they died, i couldnt have shot them.

in my real life scenerio, there arent any kids for 4 houses down to the left, and 8 to the right

I didn't ask you about your real life scenario I asked you to answer the question what if both of them are killed by accident by you while your defending yourself. Most likely charges will be pressed against YOU and The Gang.

[TheKingDavis]

But it's pretty bad when you're supporting guns and use Australia as an example.


Maybe its just my bad eyesite, but i cant find Australia on there...

[Bougainvillea]

Lets use Australia as an example.

Yeah.

[Lily of the Valley]

Maybe its just my bad eyesite, but i cant find Australia on there...Probably 'cause it's a whole hell of a lot further down than the US.

~Maggot

[Cloud]

not everyone uses them for bad purposes like you 2 think,

i would use one for my self defense, a gangster breaks in my house?
BOOM
hes already packing, so why take the chance of losing my life?

if its a life threatening instance, guns should be used for self defense

trigger happy children
how wonderful...

so your honestly telling us
someone breaks into your house
your going to start a shootout in the front room?
enjoy the murder charges
and the destroyed property


if your going to go in and shoot someone your gonna end up destroying whatever they were going to steal
so why jsut not bother
beat em with a bat and call the cops
job done
nothing broken
and no murder charges

[Rutherford The Brave]

With this I shall leave you. Your fear of being harmed by an foreign invader is evident, it doesn't matter who they are whether they are terrorist, gangs, rapist, theifs, etc. Terrorists don't give a shit about you, you mean nothing to them. Gangs have bigger fish to fry than a middle/lower class family. A rapist doesn't really want to rape someone who is to hard to rape for him. Finally if you do not want to be ropped, get an alarm system. Now, that I basically have debunked most of the claims. It seems you really have no reason to carry a gun, that is if you are not living in an area that its particularly dangerous. Normal people don't need guns, normal people need to stop fearing people, because fear is what gives them power.

[theOperaGhost]

But the point is if you have guns in the house that becomes less likely.

The intruders, thiefs, call them whatever, have to carry a gun because they assume the residents will have one. It just escalates everything.

Guns can be used to injure. There's actually a better chance of just injuring a person with a single shot than killing them. One of my friends was shot in the chest when he was about 5...in the chest! He's still alive. About the only place you're going to be able to shoot a person with one shot to kill them is the heart and possibly the head. Proportionally speaking, there's a better chance of just injuring.

Yes.

I see no reason to own a gun unless you hunt. Or unless the area you live in is prone to break-ins, then a small handgun for safety is ok. Other than that, there is no real reason to own one, in my view.

That basically describes every place in America. Either you live in a city where you need protection or you live in a rural area where you hunt.

If someone broke into my house, I'd hit them with a pan until they are have lost conciousness, then call the cops.

Good luck with that. You have a good chance of being shot in the process, because you aren't going to knock him out on the first blow.

im a gun lunatic? no. I have been trained in the use of firearms and i know exactly what they are for

It looks like you're a gun lunatic if you're going to use a fucking AK-47 on someone for unchaining your dogs that you don't even give enough shit about to feed.

trigger happy children
how wonderful...

so your honestly telling us
someone breaks into your house
your going to start a shootout in the front room?
enjoy the murder charges
and the destroyed property


if your going to go in and shoot someone your gonna end up destroying whatever they were going to steal
so why jsut not bother
beat em with a bat and call the cops
job done
nothing broken
and no murder charges

"Many modern statutes limit the use of deadly force to cases where it's reasonable to believe intruders intend to commit crimes of violence (like homicide, assault, rape, and robbery) against occupants. Some go further and include all felonies. A few include all offenses. The most extreme is the Colorado "make my day law" which provides:
1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their homes.
2) Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry in to the dwelling, and when the occupant has reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonable believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force (Section 18-1-704.5).

Statutes also vary as to the area the use of deadly force covers. Most require entry into the home itself. This doesn't include the curtilage, the area immediately surrounding the home. Many require entry into an occupied home. This means you can't set some automatic device to shoot whomever trips the switch when you're not home." (Samaha, 218-219).

And like I said to the other guy...good luck with the bat, Calum. You better be a slugger.

And to Greg....security systems cost more money than a gun. Not everyone can afford a security system.

[Lily of the Valley]

With this I shall leave you. Your fear of being harmed by an foreign invader is evident, it doesn't matter who they are whether they are terrorist, gangs, rapist, theifs, etc. Terrorists don't give a shit about you, you mean nothing to them. Gangs have bigger fish to fry than a middle/lower class family. A rapist doesn't really want to rape someone who is to hard to rape for him. Finally if you do not want to be ropped, get an alarm system. Now, that I basically have debunked most of the claims. It seems you really have no reason to carry a gun, that is if you are not living in an area that its particularly dangerous. Normal people don't need guns, normal people need to stop fearing people, because fear is what gives them power.You...didn't really "debunk" anything. I agree with you entirely, but saying "nuh-uh" really isn't debunking or even arguing.

~Maggot

[Bougainvillea]

In a real life situation, shooting that person will leave such a traumatic effect on you. The fact that you ended/could've ended someone's life is such a terrible feeling. Unless you're a heartless person who feels nothing, those memories will haunt you for a long while.

[Perseus]

if your going to go in and shoot someone your gonna end up destroying whatever they were going to steal
so why jsut not bother
beat em with a bat and call the cops
job done
nothing broken
and no murder charges
Calum, you can just as easily kill someone with a baseball bat if you're pissed at them for breaking into your home. Smack in the face 'couple of times, and they're down for the count.
And once again, in America, if you are fearing for your life and kill someone inside your house while they are not fleeing, it's not considered murder, unless you were talking about the hypothetical situation where all those kids died.

[Cloud]

Calum, you can just as easily kill someone with a baseball bat if you're pissed at them for breaking into your home. Smack in the face 'couple of times, and they're down for the count.
And once again, in America, if you are fearing for your life and kill someone inside your house while they are not fleeing, it's not considered murder, unless you were talking about the hypothetical situation where all those kids died.
im aware of that
but with a bat you have alot more chances to stop
a gun it takes a moment to pull the trigger
a bat it takes a while to swing
giving you more time to stop

[Perseus]

im aware of that
but with a bat you have alot more chances to stop
a gun it takes a moment to pull the trigger
a bat it takes a while to swing
giving you more time to stop

You are completely right on that. I have nothing else to add.

[TheKingDavis]

trigger happy children
how wonderful...

so your honestly telling us
someone breaks into your house
your going to start a shootout in the front room?
enjoy the murder charges
and the destroyed property


if your going to go in and shoot someone your gonna end up destroying whatever they were going to steal
so why jsut not bother
beat em with a bat and call the cops
job done
nothing broken
and no murder charges


first off, i cant be charged with murder if they break into my house, in new mexico, as long as one single toe is inside the door, you can blast them.

im not trigger happy, i just know when its time to defend myself.


oh and to the other guy, they arent my dogs, and yes i still feed them fyi, but when they move from messing with the dogs, to trying to break in, then i have the right to shoot the fuckers, im not going to be the one dead, its kill or be killed with the gangsters in my town

[Lily of the Valley]

In a real life situation, shooting that person will leave such a traumatic effect on you. The fact that you ended/could've ended someone's life is such a terrible feeling. Unless you're a heartless person who feels nothing, those memories will haunt you for a long while.Don't necessarily need to be a heartless person. We all have our own morals, and each situation is different. You can't say - with any basis, anyway - that anyone who doesn't feel terrible for almost killing someone is automatically heartless.

~Maggot

[Bougainvillea]

I'm sorry, but if you end someone's life, and feel no remorse. No regrets, or anything. You're heartless. Because ending someone's life is one of the worst things someone could do. Like you said. We all have our own morals. And those are mine.

[Cloud]

im not trigger happy, i just know when its time to defend myself.


oh and to the other guy, they arent my dogs, and yes i still feed them fyi, but when they move from messing with the dogs, to trying to break in, then i have the right to shoot the fuckers, im not going to be the one dead, its kill or be killed with the gangsters in my town

erm
your going to shoot your neighbours for breaking in because you think they might b trying to kill you?

and you seem pretty trigger happy to me
by your willingnss to use a gun at every given oppurtunity



side note
some guns (such as the SPAS 12) can be loaded with non lethal beanbag rounds
so in the instance of an intruder
why choose to fire lethal rounds
when you can just as easily fire a non lethal round designed for taking down someone

[Lily of the Valley]

I'm sorry, but if you end someone's life, and feel no remorse. No regrets, or anything. You're heartless. Because ending someone's life is one of the worst things someone could do. Like you said. We all have our own morals. And those are mine.You didn't say end someone's life, you said could have ended someone's life, which are two very different things. Just like almost hitting an animal and hitting an animal are two very different things.

Believing someone is heartless - as in sociopathic? - isn't a moral, that's a belief about another person's personality. And people's personalities don't change based on your belief of them. Your opinion that a person should have regrets and that it's the worst thing that can be done is a moral philosophy, but that's purely subjective. Another's personality isn't subjective, it is what it is.

~Maggot

[Kahn]

I don't see the point in American citizens to be able to have guns. If they are Police Officers and Soldiers they should be allowed to own one but only on the job, not at home. If you put a gun in the wrong hands you cannot predict the havoc it will bring upon the community. Look at Fort Hood. An army psychiatrist opened fire on his fellow soldiers killing 12 and wounding 31. Now, yes he is technically a soldier and should hold the right to a gun but he was a psychiatrist, and he was also suspected of contact with an overseas terrorist. They should've been monitoring him.

1997. Armed robbery. Two men that bought two AK47's and Two fully automatic M16's. M16's are the main weapon given to U.S soldiers. It is Armor piercing and is fully automatic. As both men approached the bank two patrol officers saw the men and evacuated the streets and set up barricades blocking escape paths. It took almost 2 hours to finally kill one of the suspects, and they didn't even kill him. He killed himself because his gun had jammed. The other suspect had gotten away, and in full body armor almost escaped until he was shot by a Swat officer in the foot. The one place he didn't have padding. This shows what can happen if we give fire arms to people who shouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

I am not saying that all people should not be allowed to bear arms, but what is it needed for. Like Dustin said over 70% of murders involved guns. I think that people should be put to the test seeing if they know the safeties of using a gun, and see if they are mentally certified since if it is just seeing if you know the safety, an insane person could easily pass the test.

[Lily of the Valley]

I think that people should be put to the test seeing if they know the safeties of using a gun, and see if they are mentally certified since if it is just seeing if you know the safety, an insane person could easily pass the test.That reminds me of Dimebag's murder. The guy, who was schizophrenic, who did it got the gun from his mother, climbed onto the stage, and shot him five times. Sure, his mother could've passed the psych evaluation, but that doesn't mean no one else can get ahold of the gun. Unless a person is a hermit with no friends and family, them being able to pass tests is pretty much useless.

Not only that, as I said, the people that are dangerous aren't the ones that are mentally ill. They're just average people who might get angry or depressed or desperate. Most gun-related homicides have nothing to do with mental illness or a lack of safety knowledge.

~Maggot

[Kahn]

Did you read anything in the second paragraph? That all has too do with two average people.

[Lily of the Valley]

Did you read anything in the second paragraph? That all has too do with two average people.I skimmed your post, but I'm not talking about fucking military weapons or some shit. I mean average people with average firearms. There was a murder here last year where a guy shot his landlord just because he was pissed off at him. I don't know specifically what kind of gun was used, but it wasn't an AK-47 or some shit.

~Maggot

[Kahn]

I skimmed your post, but I'm not talking about fucking military weapons or some shit. I mean average people with average firearms. There was a murder here last year where a guy shot his landlord just because he was pissed off at him. I don't know specifically what kind of gun was used, but it wasn't an AK-47 or some shit.

~Maggot

I'm surprised by your anger. Did you know the man personally? Did you know if he was healthy or not? If you didn't you shouldn't be passing judgement. If someone shot someone just because they were angry, they probably weren't the healthiest mentally.

[Lily of the Valley]

I'm surprised by your anger. Did you know the man personally? Did you know if he was healthy or not? If you didn't you shouldn't be passing judgement. If someone shot someone just because they were angry, they probably weren't the healthiest mentally.Huh? Dude, I'm not mad. And you obviously don't know the kind of town I live in. Everyone knows everyone here. This guy wasn't mentally unstable. Nor was the kid I mentioned earlier that shot up my school - and yes, I did know him.

Also, I've very seriously considered killing someone before, and I'm not mentally ill. People are passionate animals. We don't have to be mentally unsound to do things like kill.

~Maggot

[Kahn]

Then what was the point in swearing in your last post? To sound aggressive? And if you've considered killing someone and you think that you are not mentally ill, or unstable your in for a ride. People joke around with it sometimes, and it is kind of sad, but if your community is that bad that there is killing and people are used to it, something is wrong.

Oh. And everyone knows everyone in your community? That makes sense. You knew the guy personally did you? Was he a very angry person? And if you did I'm sure you wouldn't bring it up and debate it like this because if you knew him well enough that he didn't have mental illness than you should be scared. But your community is used to killing. My bad.

[Cloud]

Then what was the point in swearing in your last post? To sound aggressive? And if you've considered killing someone and you think that you are not mentally ill, or unstable your in for a ride. People joke around with it sometimes, and it is kind of sad, but if your community is that bad that there is killing and people are used to it, something is wrong.

Oh. And everyone knows everyone in your community? That makes sense. You knew the guy personally did you? Was he a very angry person? And if you did I'm sure you wouldn't bring it up and debate it like this because if you knew him well enough that he didn't have mental illness than you should be scared. But your community is used to killing. My bad.

Adam
you clearly dont understand how much emotions can effect our decision making skills
They can make such a difference on how we react
how we think
and how we choose to cope and do things

you dont need to be mentally unstable
jsut to be caught at a really bad time

[Kahn]

Adam
you clearly dont understand how much emotions can effect our decision making skills
They can make such a difference on how we react
how we think
and how we choose to cope and do things

you dont need to be mentally unstable
jsut to be caught at a really bad time

I guess that does make sense. She didn't put it clearly enough, or at least to me. She is saying thought that she knew this person personally knowing he wasn't mentally unstable. I have a hard time believing that. I also have a hard time believing that her community is used to killings. I know it is off topic but I am kind of flabbergasted (lol) at the fact that a community is used to this kind of behavior and that she is not emotionally effected by his actions.

[dead]

I guess that does make sense. She didn't put it clearly enough, or at least to me. She is saying thought that she knew this person personally knowing he wasn't mentally unstable. I have a hard time believing that. I also have a hard time believing that her community is used to killings. I know it is off topic but I am kind of flabbergasted (lol) at the fact that a community is used to this kind of behavior and that she is not emotionally effected by his actions.

Some community's are used to killing's(big city's mostly)

[Lily of the Valley]

Then what was the point in swearing in your last post? To sound aggressive?You equate cursing with anger and aggressiveness? Loldumb. And if you've considered killing someone and you think that you are not mentally ill, or unstable your in for a ride.You're so, so oblivious to human nature. It's really fuckin' funny.People joke around with it sometimes, and it is kind of sad, but if your community is that bad that there is killing and people are used to it, something is wrong.I never said people are used to the killing here. When did I?
Oh. And everyone knows everyone in your community? That makes sense. You knew the guy personally did you? Was he a very angry person? And if you did I'm sure you wouldn't bring it up and debate it like this because if you knew him well enough that he didn't have mental illness than you should be scared. But your community is used to killing. My bad....

Wtf are you on about?

~Maggot

[The Joker]

What if they are armed to the teeth, and you have no way of approaching them?

I actually forgot something in my other post..
I'd shoot to maime, I couldn't see myself ever killing someone..

A robber wouldn't come in extremely armed to my house. We aren't rich, or anything like that.

im a gun lunatic? no. I have been trained in the use of firearms and i know exactly what they are for

Like shooting at old ladies who come into your house? Like you posted about?

[Kahn]

I am finished with this. I don't really feel like arguing anymore. Just doesn't feel right. Thanks to Calum for proving me wrong and sorry for being so rude to you Laura.

[Sapphire]

As I said before, the "right hands" can quickly become the "wrong hands" when it comes to gun ownership.
All it takes is for them to be put into an emotionally charged situation.
No amount of tests or interviews can help you ascertain whether the person standing in front of you will end up using their gun illegally against another person or not in such a situation.

EDIT
To the person that gave me neg rep - I had data from the USA on gun safety and gun-related incidents (which I provided links for) and I used that to help me draw my conclusions. I am not just a foreigner who "think[s] they know all about America"

[theOperaGhost]

As I said before, the "right hands" can quickly become the "wrong hands" when it comes to gun ownership.
All it takes is for them to be put into an emotionally charged situation.
No amount of tests or interviews can help you ascertain whether the person standing in front of you will end up using their gun illegally against another person or not in such a situation.

EDIT
To the person that gave me neg rep - I had data from the USA on gun safety and gun-related incidents (which I provided links for) and I used that to help me draw my conclusions. I am not just a foreigner who "think[s] they know all about America"

I don't think anyone (or at least I'm not) is disputing that the right hands can quickly become the wrong hands. The same can be said about a knife, a baseball bat, a car, a golf club as in the Martha Moxley situation, etc. All of these things can be very deadly when the right hands are faced with an emotionally charged situation and become the wrong hands. Like I have said...if someone is emotional enough to kill someone with a gun, they are emotional enough to use something else too. Granted, a gun is one of the quicker ways, the others can very easily be used too. I personally have never thought about shooting someone....stabbing someone on the other hand, I've been completely prepared to do so. I actually carry a knife with me for protection if I've needed it. Unfortunately concealed weapons laws forbid carrying around a knife without a concealed weapons permit, which I don't have. Guns are not the only instruments capable of killing.

EDIT - To whomever negative repped me, I am not a gun fanatic. I don't even own, nor have I shot anything more powerful than a .22 rifle (although my dad has a shotgun from when he used to hunt). I've also been shot with a .22 rifle...it apparently didn't have much of an effect on me since I strongly believe in out right to bear arms. Do I plan on owning guns in the future? Yes. I also plan on being in law enforcement, which means I will be carrying weapons. Does that make me a gun fanatic? No. Oh...and don't be such a pussy...if you're going to criticize me, include your name...grow a pair.

[sweetmisery]

It would be virtually impossible to get rid of guns. Guns are "protection" so to speak, but so are other things. Just as there are other objects that can hurt you, there are other objects that can help you.

I personally, don't like guns. I think there is no appropriate age for guns because mainly it depends on the person you hand that gun to - the neighborhood their in - the situation their in - and a lot more factors.

Yes, gun usage is ONE of the leading causes of death, but think about it - eliminate guns and what does that accomplish? Crime will still exist, people will still die. People will still find other ways to cause bodily harm to others.

I'm sort of neutral on this matter, mainly because there are two or three sides to this whole gun thing.

I can't say I know if American's are obsessed with guns. On a general stand point, their probably obsessed with using it for the one thing they can use it for - killing. That's the bottom line. Guns kill people (animals, etc.). I can be self defense or just a random emotionally charged rampage...

Maybe when your really in danger it's appropriate. I'm going to stop now..I feel like I'm being repetitive.

[theOperaGhost]

It would be virtually impossible to get rid of guns. Guns are "protection" so to speak, but so are other things. Just as there are other objects that can hurt you, there are other objects that can help you.

I personally, don't like guns. I think there is no appropriate age for guns because mainly it depends on the person you hand that gun to - the neighborhood their in - the situation their in - and a lot more factors.

Yes, gun usage is ONE of the leading causes of death, but think about it - eliminate guns and what does that accomplish? Crime will still exist, people will still die. People will still find other ways to cause bodily harm to others.

I'm sort of neutral on this matter, mainly because there are two or three sides to this whole gun thing.

I can't say I know if American's are obsessed with guns. On a general stand point, their probably obsessed with using it for the one thing they can use it for - killing. That's the bottom line. Guns kill people (animals, etc.). I can be self defense or just a random emotionally charged rampage...

Maybe when your really in danger it's appropriate. I'm going to stop now..I feel like I'm being repetitive.

Actually, guns aren't even in the top ten leading causes of death...now if we'd get rid of vehicles, we'd be preventing a lot more deaths than if we got rid of guns.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html

[Ripplemagne]

This is more about America, but it contains the broader perspective in the matter too: Gun Control. (http://ripplemagne.weebly.com/1/post/2009/10/gun-control.html) As for age, 18. If you're old enough to serve your country and go to war -- id est, get shot at by guns -- then you should be old enough to own your own firearm.

Guns are awesome. Only pansies are against guns.

[The Joker]

Awww, I was called a pansy by Rip. </3

[nick]

Only pansies are against guns.
Great argument that

[Rainstorm]

Only pansies are against guns.

Looks like I'm a pansie :D

[The Joker]

I think, if you need a gun to defend yourself, you're the pansy.

[Sage]

I think, if you need a gun to defend yourself, you're the pansy.

http://i50.tinypic.com/f3gwlc.png

Son, I am disappoint. This is probably by far the most profoundly ludicrous, stupid thing I've ever heard you say on a forum. Okay. Someone points a gun at you. What would you suggest (as a non-pansy) to do?

Great argument that

Congratulations Nick! Way to completely ignore his entire post and article just to jump on a single statement at the end to show that you yourself don't have any real argument!

[The Joker]

http://i50.tinypic.com/f3gwlc.png

Pansy.

[Sage]

I have no real refutation.

*sigh*

[The Joker]

Twas making a joke response, to your joke post.

I can't refute your post when their is no point made.

[Sage]

Twas making a joke response, to your joke post.

I was not making a joke post at all.

Okay. Someone points a gun at you. What would you suggest (as a non-pansy) to do?

Not to mention you also made a response to Rip's post without aknowledging the entire fucking article he wrote and linked to.

[The Joker]

When you post an image, and no words, how am I supposed to tell whether or not it was a joke? If I had a gun held against me, I would try as hard as I could to fight that person off; I am not a submissive person and I would rather die fighting than dying.

Sorry, I didn't see the article at first.

[Sage]

When you post an image, and no words, how am I supposed to tell whether or not it was a joke? If I had a gun held against me, I would try as hard as I could to fight that person off; I am not a submissive person and I would rather die fighting than dying.

I'm truly sorry that I would prefer fighting a gunman with a gun than dying unarmed out of some stupid sense of honor.

[The Joker]

I'm truly sorry that I would prefer fighting a gunman with a gun than dying unarmed out of some stupid sense of honor.

That's the difference between you and me. My sense of honour seems stupid to you, and yours does to me.

I'd rather not kill a man with a gun.

[Sage]

That's the difference between you and me. My sense of honour seems stupid to you, and yours does to me.

I'd rather not kill a man with a gun.

And I'd rather live as a hero than die as one. If you want to die, then feel free, rush the psycho with your fist held high- But don't tell people who want to fairly defend themselves that they can't fairly defend themselves.

[The Joker]

Having the fastest shot doesn't make you a hero.

[Sage]

Having the fastest shot doesn't make you a hero.

Incapacitating or killing someone who would otherwise kill a lot of people does, however.

[Sapphire]

And I'd rather live as a hero than die as one.
If you live to see yourself become a hero then you run the higher risk of dying as a villain...

And btw, only a few people reach "hero" status after killing another person.

[Sage]

If you live to see yourself become a hero then you run the higher risk of dying as a villain...

Thanks, Batman. I still await a refutation of the point I made.

AIf you want to die, then feel free, rush the psycho with your fist held high- But don't tell people who want to fairly defend themselves that they can't fairly defend themselves.

[The Joker]

If you live to see yourself become a hero then you run the higher risk of dying as a villain...

And btw, only a few people reach "hero" status after killing another person.

Carole, using a line from Batman won't prove your point.

Incapacitating or killing someone who would otherwise kill a lot of people does, however.

Not really. How do you know they would kill another person?

Do you consider Jack Ruby (the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald) a hero?

[Sapphire]

The fact that it is true means nothing I assume then?

[Sage]

Do you consider Jack Ruby (the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald) a hero?

No, because Lee Harvey Oswald had already been arrested. Had Jack Ruby killed him before he was able to assassinate Kennedy, then yes, he'd be a hero.

The fact that it is true means nothing I assume then?

A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

[Sapphire]

A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
That would only be applicable if I thought I was being witty...

I was actually drawing on a valid point though.

[Sage]

That would only be applicable if I thought I was being witty...

I was actually drawing on a valid point though.

No, you're bringing up a Batman quote and trying to argue it as a fact. Heroes all become villains is not a fact, nor is there any way to measure such a claim. Besides, the entire point of that movie was to prove that quote wrong. Batman did not become a villain. He was a hero who was uncorruptable.

[Sapphire]

No, you're bringing up a Batman quote and trying to argue it as a fact. Heroes all become villains is not a fact, nor is there any way to measure such a claim. Besides, the entire point of that movie was to prove that quote wrong. Batman did not become a villain. He was a hero who was uncorruptable.
Batman lived to be a hero to the end of that film - whether he keeps that going isn't covered.

And, as I have said a number of times, all it takes is for you to be placed in an emotionally charged situation to turn into that which you have promised yourself never to become - a battered wife/husband, a murderer, a rapist, a vigilante etc.

[Sage]

Batman lived to be a hero to the end of that film - whether he keeps that going isn't covered.

I don't know much about it, but the upcoming movie Arkham seems to be the sequel to the Dark Knight, so yes, I would say he does continue to be a hero.

And, as I have said a number of times, all it takes is for you to be placed in an emotionally charged situation to turn into that which you have promised yourself never to become - a battered wife/husband, a murderer, a rapist, a vigilante etc.

And likewise, that reasoning just goes back to my point. If someone is going through a lot emotionally and decides to go on a shooting spree, I'd rather be able to fight them back fairly rather than cower in a corner and wait for the police, during which time I'll likely get my brains blown away.

This then goes back to a point that Ripple made in his article. If you take away all these guns, then suddenly, the only people with them are the government and the outlaws- neither of which I trust.

[Sapphire]

I don't know much about it, but the upcoming movie Arkham seems to be the sequel to the Dark Knight, so yes, I would say he does continue to be a hero.But that is not the end of Batman's story.

And likewise, that reasoning just goes back to my point. If someone is going through a lot emotionally and decides to go on a shooting spree, I'd rather be able to fight them back fairly rather than cower in a corner and wait for the police, during which time I'll likely get my brains blown away.The police are there to keep order in society and how can they do that when people are shooting each other here, there and everywhere?

This then goes back to a point that Ripple made in his article. If you take away all these guns, then suddenly, the only people with them are the government and the outlaws- neither of which I trust.If you don't trust the government then vote against them - you can do a lot to get others to join you in that too so it will have an affect.
And although it may be a surprise to you, but no one trusts outlaws. That is why we lock our cars/houses/rooms/shops etc if we are leaving them for a substantial amount of time.

[Sage]

The police are there to keep order in society and how can they do that when people are shooting each other here, there and everywhere?

Slippery slope argument. I'm not here to say everyone should have a gun. If you want a gun, be of the age requirement and fill out some tests/screening/regulation/etc.

If you don't trust the government then vote against them - you can do a lot to get others to join you in that too so it will have an affect.

I don't trust any government. Give people power and authority, and 99.9% of the time, they will abuse it.

And although it may be a surprise to you, but no one trusts outlaws. That is why we lock our cars/houses/rooms/shops etc if we are leaving them for a substantial amount of time.

Let me clarify, also going back to Matt's point.

I don't trust outlaws to point a gun at me within a range at which disarming them with my hands is possible.

[Sapphire]

Slippery slope argument. I'm not here to say everyone should have a gun. If you want a gun, be of the age requirement and fill out some tests/screening/regulation/etc.But how can those regulations be enough when a significant number of people who have committed a crime haven't actually done so before they purchase a gun and when a number of crimes involving guns are motivated by emotions rather than reason?

I don't trust any government. Give people power and authority, and 99.9% of the time, they will abuse it.What a sad and cynical world you have created for yourself.

Let me clarify, also going back to Matt's point.

I don't trust outlaws to point a gun at me within a range at which disarming them with my hands is possible.
And why would a criminal break into your house with a gun if he/she didn't suspect you would be armed with a gun and only expected to make off with TVs, PCs, DVD players etc?

[Sage]

But how can those regulations be enough when a significant number of people who have committed a crime haven't actually done so before they purchase a gun and when a number of crimes involving guns are motivated by emotions rather than reason?

Find me a statistic backing that up, please. You must also bare in mind that with any liberty you give people, some abuse will come out of it. That's life. I think a lot of people spew nothing but bullshit, but I support freedom of speech. I think a lot of people are completely deluded and misinformed about the nature of politics, but I support the right to vote.

What a sad and cynical world you have created for yourself.

What a sad and cynical world we've created for ourselves.

And why would a criminal break into your house with a gun if he/she didn't suspect you would be armed with a gun and only expected to make off with TVs, PCs, DVD players etc?

That's really how criminals think. They don't want their victims to be powerless against them, no, not at all. You really nailed it. Good job. :D

[Giles]

This is why I love living in the Uk.
Our gun laws are so strict that so few average people will even see, never mind use, a gun that it's pretty safe. Compared to America anyway.

[theOperaGhost]

What a sad and cynical world you have created for yourself.


How unfortunate that the sad and cynical world he has created is the actual world we live in....Carole, you are being obliterated in this argument....

[Rainstorm]

I love how this has all resorted to that if the other person has a gun, you have to have one to fight back.

That's why I don't like the idea of anybody having guns, unless you are in law enforcement. If you and your adversary don't have guns, you're both equal. Unless, he has another sort of weapon, but that goes to an entire different debate.

[Sage]

I love how this has all resorted to that if the other person has a gun, you have to have one to fight back.

You don't have to have a gun to fight someone with a gun. Unless you want to have a chance at any region beyond a foot or two away, of course.

That's why I don't like the idea of anybody having guns, unless you are in law enforcement. If you and your adversary don't have guns, you're both equal. Unless, he has another sort of weapon, but that goes to an entire different debate.

And that's the whole fucking point. You're debating on unrealistic ideals. Criminals who want guns will get guns. Outlawing guns does not disarm everybody, it just disarms law abiding citizens.

[theOperaGhost]

I love how this has all resorted to that if the other person has a gun, you have to have one to fight back.

That's why I don't like the idea of anybody having guns, unless you are in law enforcement. If you and your adversary don't have guns, you're both equal. Unless, he has another sort of weapon, but that goes to an entire different debate.

If guns are illegal, law abiding citizens WON'T have guns. Criminals WILL have guns. You will be fucked! It's like prohibition....do you think that worked? Ever heard of rum-runners, bootleggers, and moonshiners? They produced alcohol illegally and transported it and distributed it. A whole system of underground gun manufacturing and distribution will develop meaning criminals will have access to guns and you won't! Making guns illegal will not get rid of the problem, it will only make it worse.

[Rainstorm]

So, guns need to remain legal and if someone trys to kill you with a gun, you kill them first is what you're saying?

[Sage]

So, guns need to remain legal and if someone trys to kill you with a gun, you kill them first is what you're saying?

Yup. Preferably, I'd just incapacitate them, but if they die in the process, they had it coming.

[theOperaGhost]

So, guns need to remain legal and if someone trys to kill you with a gun, you kill them first is what you're saying?

Guns remain legal so I actually have a chance to defend myself against someone trying to kill me with a gun. It's called self defense. I'd have a much better chance with a gun than without.

[Tiberius]

If you don't trust the government then vote against them - you can do a lot to get others to join you in that too so it will have an affect.
And although it may be a surprise to you, but no one trusts outlaws. That is why we lock our cars/houses/rooms/shops etc if we are leaving them for a substantial amount of time.
Carole, you fail to see the point in Tim's disstrust of the government when they are the only ones with the guns. If you don't have the physical means of stopping them, a vote means NOTHING. If the people can't defend their rights and interests, that's were tyranny comes into play. In every moden travisty of a Tyrannical government, there's been a dissarming of the populus. Guns aren't just here for sport or home defense, they're here to protect us from the government- to provide a means of rebellion if the government over-steps it's Constitutional athority and ignores the wishes and votes of the populus. At least, that's what they're here for in America...

[theOperaGhost]

Yup. Preferably, I'd just incapacitate them, but if they die in the process, they had it coming.

Exactly...The odds of getting a fatal shot in one shot are not especially high. I'd personally aim for their hand holding the gun or for their legs. Gunshots don't have to be fatal...you actually have to have a well aimed and placed shot to make it fatal. But if they die in the process, that's unfortunate for them...they shouldn't have tried to rob/murder/rape me.

[Sage]

To add more to this conversation, I may as well bring up the issue of children. In my opinion, if you own a gun and have children, you have to teach them the basics of handling a gun, what it's capable of, and all the safety procedures involved in it. Kid don't blow eachother away because they want to, they do it because they don't know anything about guns.

[nick]

Guns remain legal so I actually have a chance to defend myself against someone trying to kill me with a gun. It's called self defense. I'd have a much better chance with a gun than without.
But that's the thing, you're completely wrong. The fact that you have a gun makes it certain that you're oponent will try to kill you, they will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are unarmed your chance of survival would be much higher.

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.

[Sage]

But that's the thing, you're completely wrong. The fact that you have a gun makes it certain that you're oponent will try to kill you, they will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are unarmed your chance of survival would be much higher.

Take that chance if you like, but I'd rather defend myself than take the chance that a criminal is too cowardly to shoot me.

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.

Don't compare youthful thugs to law-abiding adults. Those kids shouldn't have knives to begin with.

[The Batman]

But that's the thing, you're completely wrong. The fact that you have a gun makes it certain that you're oponent will try to kill you, they will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are unarmed your chance of survival would be much higher.

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.

Do you have any statistics to back it up?

[theOperaGhost]

But that's the thing, you're completely wrong. The fact that you have a gun makes it certain that you're oponent will try to kill you, they will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are unarmed your chance of survival would be much higher.

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.

It doesn't make it certain that my opponent will try to kill me. Have you ever seen a stand off between two gunned men end quickly? Me holding a gun makes the other gunman reconsider their actions. "Hmm...I should probably get the fuck out of here so I don't get my fucking head blown to hell!" You're going to protect your property and yourself in the process!

[Tiberius]

But that's the thing, you're completely wrong. The fact that you have a gun makes it certain that you're oponent will try to kill you, they will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are unarmed your chance of survival would be much higher.

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.

Please explain why there are home onwers who are holding armed intruders at gun point while the cops are coming...

I don't think that they were killed, do you?

[Cloud]

But that's the thing, you're completely wrong. The fact that you have a gun makes it certain that you're oponent will try to kill you, they will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are unarmed your chance of survival would be much higher.

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.

not necessarily
the knife carrying warnings are about your own knife being used against you
big oponent comes along not that all kids have knives
you whip out your knife
guy disarms you
you get stabbed by the knife you brought in

[Tiberius]

Okay, Nick, chew on this. Every month there is a magzine called "American Rifleman" and in it is an article called "The Armed Citizen" that tells about 5 or 6 intences where armed(as in has a gun in their hand) homeowners confront armed intruders and win.

"Gabrial Guzman was awakened by the incessant ringing of his doorbell. Worried about the bell ringer's intentions, he peered out the window and saw an unknown man walking in his backyard. As a precaution, Guzman armed himself with a gun before investigating. "I opened up the door and yelled at him and just told him to go away," Guzman explained. Instead, police say, the suspect pointed a gun at Guzman,"...I thought he was going to shoot me-so I shot him," Guzman said.Police arrested the wounded suspect, who they believe committed two other burglaries in the neighborhood before trying his luck at the Guzman home.(KCBD-TV, Lubbock, TX, 11/24/08) "American Rifleman"

The guy defending himself with a gun won, how in the world did that happen according to your theroy?

[nick]

I didnt say that everyone that has a gun for self defence would end up getting shot and killed, just that it increases the chances that the intruder will use his weapon against you, and also that the intruder will come armed in the first place.

[Ripplemagne]

Great argument that

Good job picking out the one bit that was fratire in my post and ignoring the actual points.

I think, if you need a gun to defend yourself, you're the pansy.

First of all, try defending against a gun with your fists and see how that turns out. Yes, you need a gun to defend against a gun. Durf.

Second, you make like guns are only ever used to kill people. Many people collect them, go hunting, do target practice, protection against political tyranny and even stunts. So, yes, if you're whining about guns, you're a pansy.

O NO PLZ DONT FIRE GUN IT HURTS MY EARS.

If I had a gun held against me, I would try as hard as I could to fight that person off; I am not a submissive person and I would rather die fighting than dying.

Matt...

You're doing a brilliant job of proving my point. Don't stop. :)

If you live to see yourself become a hero then you run the higher risk of dying as a villain...

And btw, only a few people reach "hero" status after killing another person.

First point, untrue. Heroes tend to know their own self worth and act upon it.

Second point, oh really? I beg to differ:

http://www.javno.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2009/m01/y193542299723850.jpg

That would only be applicable if I thought I was being witty...

http://www.tovx.com/Motivational%20Posters/emo/missing-point-small.jpg

Batman lived to be a hero to the end of that film - whether he keeps that going isn't covered.

Batman Beyond. I win.

And, as I have said a number of times, all it takes is for you to be placed in an emotionally charged situation to turn into that which you have promised yourself never to become - a battered wife/husband, a murderer, a rapist, a vigilante etc.

Why is everyone who disagrees with you a rapist? rofl.

Exactly...The odds of getting a fatal shot in one shot are not especially high. I'd personally aim for their hand holding the gun or for their legs.

That would be a bad idea. The odds of hitting a limb is very slim. Most Emergency Service personnel are taught to aim for the torso because it's the largest target. If they die, it's collateral damage.

[The Joker]

Good job picking out the one bit that was fratire in my post and ignoring the actual points.



First of all, try defending against a gun with your fists and see how that turns out. Yes, you need a gun to defend against a gun. Durf.

Second, you make like guns are only ever used to kill people. Many people collect them, go hunting, do target practice, protection against political tyranny and even stunts. So, yes, if you're whining about guns, you're a pansy.

O NO PLZ DONT FIRE GUN IT HURTS MY EARS.



Matt...

You're doing a brilliant job of proving my point. Don't stop. :)



First point, untrue. Heroes tend to know their own self worth and act upon it.

Second point, oh really? I beg to differ:

http://www.javno.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2009/m01/y193542299723850.jpg



http://www.tovx.com/Motivational%20Posters/emo/missing-point-small.jpg



Batman Beyond. I win.



Why is everyone who disagrees with you a rapist? rofl.



That would be a bad idea. The odds of hitting a limb is very slim. Most Emergency Service personnel are taught to aim for the torso because it's the largest target. If they die, it's collateral damage.

I'm not whining Rip, this is the debate forum. It would be whining if I was going "I H8 U GUYZ GUNZ SHULD BE BANN3D FOR3V3R IM SO MAD IM GONNA PROTEST".

[theOperaGhost]

That would be a bad idea. The odds of hitting a limb is very slim. Most Emergency Service personnel are taught to aim for the torso because it's the largest target. If they die, it's collateral damage.

I agree with that, but since people think I'm a lunatic gun fanatic, I wanted to make myself look less ruthless to the person trying to kill me by simply shooting his limbs, which would likely be a miss which i.e. leads to me being shot. Fortunately for me, I have good enough aim to hit a person in the torso very easily. My intent when shooting him is not to kill him, simply to incapacitate him and defend myself. Since there is not premeditation NOR is there actually mens rea to kill, I can't be found guilty of murder. I could possibly be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, but hey, I'm willing to take that. To be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea AND actus reus MUST be present.

[Sapphire]

Find me a statistic backing that up, please. You must also bare in mind that with any liberty you give people, some abuse will come out of it. That's life. I think a lot of people spew nothing but bullshit, but I support freedom of speech. I think a lot of people are completely deluded and misinformed about the nature of politics, but I support the right to vote.Ok, how about Buford O. Furrow - he was armed to the teeth when he opened fire on a Jewish community in 1999 and every single gun he owned was registered. I believe that the background criminal checks were already put in place about 4 or 5 years before this.
Bryan Uyesugi shot and killed 116 people with 17 registered guns over the course of 9 years.
Marvin Gaye's father shot and killed him after they had rowed in 1984.
And a house with a gun in it is "three times more likely to be the site of a homicide than a home without guns".

-- From http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/9/Gun-control.html

This is why I love living in the Uk.
Our gun laws are so strict that so few average people will even see, never mind use, a gun that it's pretty safe. Compared to America anyway.Exactly.

Our gun-related offenses have decreased since the latest law reform (2002/03) on firearms as well - http://www.gun-control-network.org/GCN02.htm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf

How unfortunate that the sad and cynical world he has created is the actual world we live in....Carole, you are being obliterated in this argument....The view that the world is sad and cynical is subjective and so your assertion that it is reality has as much power behind it as my assertion that it isn't reality.

You don't have to have a gun to fight someone with a gun. Unless you want to have a chance at any region beyond a foot or two away, of course.Then why do about 40% of American adults need to own a gun for protection?
The situation in America can't be so bad that over a third of the adults living there will be threatened with a gun from that far away.

And that's the whole fucking point. You're debating on unrealistic ideals. Criminals who want guns will get guns. Outlawing guns does not disarm everybody, it just disarms law abiding citizens.As I have said a number of times, your armed law abiding citizen is just one instant away from becoming a criminal because all they need is to be in an emotionally charged situation with their gun nearby. By disarming everyone (except those in the armed forces) you are limiting the likelihood of a gun being used by someone in an emotionally charged situation and I think it is fair to say that as a result you are limiting the number of gun-related offenses.

If guns are illegal, law abiding citizens WON'T have guns. Criminals WILL have guns. You will be fucked! It's like prohibition....do you think that worked? Ever heard of rum-runners, bootleggers, and moonshiners? They produced alcohol illegally and transported it and distributed it. A whole system of underground gun manufacturing and distribution will develop meaning criminals will have access to guns and you won't! Making guns illegal will not get rid of the problem, it will only make it worse.Since they were banned in this country, our gun-related homicides have decreased.
Why do you suppose that is?

Yup. Preferably, I'd just incapacitate them, but if they die in the process, they had it coming.No one deserves to be killed and no one should have the right to kill.
I don't understand how Americans can claim to want to protect their human rights but can be perfectly happy with taking away the most vital human right of another and just say "they had it coming". Hypocritical, much?

Carole, you fail to see the point in Tim's disstrust of the government when they are the only ones with the guns. If you don't have the physical means of stopping them, a vote means NOTHING. If the people can't defend their rights and interests, that's were tyranny comes into play. In every moden travisty of a Tyrannical government, there's been a dissarming of the populus. Guns aren't just here for sport or home defense, they're here to protect us from the government- to provide a means of rebellion if the government over-steps it's Constitutional athority and ignores the wishes and votes of the populus. At least, that's what they're here for in America...The American government has overstepped the mark a load of times and yet no one has gone to the White House guns blazing.
Look up Troy Davis - that is a case of gross injustice and it's all to do with the American government, courts and police forces going against the Constitution.
Take a look at the activities of the US in the former detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.
If guns were really in the USA to keep the government in check then they have failed spectacularly.

To add more to this conversation, I may as well bring up the issue of children. In my opinion, if you own a gun and have children, you have to teach them the basics of handling a gun, what it's capable of, and all the safety procedures involved in it. Kid don't blow eachother away because they want to, they do it because they don't know anything about guns.And take a look at this:What if I've taught my kids not to touch a gun if they find one?
A number of studies [9] (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn9), [10 (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn10)], [11 (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn11)], [12 (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn12)], suggest that even kids who are trained not to touch guns can't resist, and that parents have unrealistic expectations about their kids' behavior around guns. That's why parents are encouraged to keep guns unloaded and locked separately from ammunition , and to ask about guns at the houses where their children play. Here are links to the full text or abstracts of the studies:

What do boys do when they find a real gun? (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/1247)
"They're Too Smart for That": Predicting What Children Would Do in the Presence of Guns (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/e109)
Teaching firearm safety to children: Failure of a program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11943968)
A firearm safety program for children: They just can't say no (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8856516)

-- From http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm#risk

We see it on the streets here with knife crime. The kids that carry a knife for "self defense" are the ones that end up getting stabbed.QFT.

First of all, try defending against a gun with your fists and see how that turns out. Yes, you need a gun to defend against a gun. Durf.No, you don't and Deschain has quite nicely pointed that out for us You don't have to have a gun to fight someone with a gun.

Batman Beyond. I win.When there are different universes and therefore different stories for Batman, how do you win with that?

Why is everyone who disagrees with you a rapist? rofl.And since when have I called anyone in this thread a rapist? Please, go and learn to read.

If they die, it's collateral damage.A staunch defender of people's rights, I see...

I agree with that, but since people think I'm a lunatic gun fanatic, I wanted to make myself look less ruthless to the person trying to kill me by simply shooting his limbs, which would likely be a miss which i.e. leads to me being shot. Fortunately for me, I have good enough aim to hit a person in the torso very easily. My intent when shooting him is not to kill him, simply to incapacitate him and defend myself. Since there is not premeditation NOR is there actually mens rea to kill, I can't be found guilty of murder. I could possibly be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, but hey, I'm willing to take that. To be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea AND actus reus MUST be present.The actus reus would be you shooting him in the torso. Also, mens rea does not simply mean that you have to premeditate your actions - if you do something to someone and it is a virtual certainty that the other person will die because of it, that is also classed as having intent (See Nedrick rule and R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003])

[Giles]

I've said very little. Yet this is so amazingly funny and interesting to watch.

[Sage]

Ok, how about Buford O. Furrow - he was armed to the teeth when he opened fire on a Jewish community in 1999 and every single gun he owned was registered. I believe that the background criminal checks were already put in place about 4 or 5 years before this.
Bryan Uyesugi shot and killed 116 people with 17 registered guns over the course of 9 years.
Marvin Gaye's father shot and killed him after they had rowed in 1984.
And a house with a gun in it is "three times more likely to be the site of a homicide than a home without guns".

Derp derp, let's base laws off isolated incidences.

The view that the world is sad and cynical is subjective and so your assertion that it is reality has as much power behind it as my assertion that it isn't reality.

Your point? It's useless to try and dismiss an argument by saying it's no more valid than your own. Nice try though.

Then why do about 40% of American adults need to own a gun for protection?
The situation in America can't be so bad that over a third of the adults living there will be threatened with a gun from that far away.

Let's see what happens when every criminal knows that people aren't going to be armed, then.

As I have said a number of times, your armed law abiding citizen is just one instant away from becoming a criminal because all they need is to be in an emotionally charged situation with their gun nearby. By disarming everyone (except those in the armed forces) you are limiting the likelihood of a gun being used by someone in an emotionally charged situation and I think it is fair to say that as a result you are limiting the number of gun-related offenses.

Reality: There are more good people than bad people.
Currently: Good people have guns, bad people have guns.
You propose: Take guns away from most of the good people. (Criminals will get guns any way they please, they already break the law.)
Logic: ???????
Profit!

Since they were banned in this country, our gun-related homicides have decreased.
Why do you suppose that is?

Extremely different cultures.

No one deserves to be killed and no one should have the right to kill.

No one, Carole? Seriously? No one?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/nazi_468x314.jpg

And you claim I've created a sad world for myself! But hey, if you really think we'd be better off without the right to kill people, then go ahead, don't kill anybody. I prefer my head without holes in it.

I don't understand how Americans can claim to want to protect their human rights but can be perfectly happy with taking away the most vital human right of another and just say "they had it coming". Hypocritical, much?

Not at all, because some people do have it coming. Hypothetical situation:

Man breaks into my house. Man has a gun, so do I. Man does not see me. The quickest way to handle the situation would be to shoot him. Ideally, he'd stay alive and simply be incapacitated so that he may spend a long fucking time in prison. However, in the off-chance that I do kill him, would it not be more just than him killing me?

The American government has overstepped the mark a load of times and yet no one has gone to the White House guns blazing.

Because they're not stupid and know that the moment they do, shit will hit the fan.

Look up Troy Davis - that is a case of gross injustice and it's all to do with the American government, courts and police forces going against the Constitution.

Sorry, but you don't get to talk about the Constitution after spending a few pages writing about why all guns should be banned.


If guns were really in the USA to keep the government in check then they have failed spectacularly.

Something here has failed spectacularly, but I don't think you need to look too far beyond this thread. :rolleyes:

No, you don't and Deschain has quite nicely pointed that out for us

Wow, Carole! Quote me out of context! That's real fucking professional! You missed the sentence I wrote right after that.

Unless you want to have a chance at any region beyond a foot or two away, of course.

When there are different universes and therefore different stories for Batman, how do you win with that?

Batman has always been about being incorruptable, and so Batman Beyond taking place in the future means that it really doesn't matter what canon it's in.

[Sapphire]

Derp derp, let's base laws off isolated incidences.They aren't isolated incidences, they are a sample of incidents where the gun(s) involved was/were obtained completely legally.

The statistic that a house with a gun in it is three times more likely to be the scene of a murder than a house without one illustrates that owning a gun is strongly linked with an increased likelihood of witnessing/committing or being victim to a murder.

Your point? It's useless to try and dismiss an argument by saying it's no more valid than your own. Nice try though.All I have to say to that is: lol!
A subjective view of the world cannot be properly used in a debate - otherwise it would quickly become just an argument.

Let's see what happens when every criminal knows that people aren't going to be armed, then.Lol, aren't you going to answer my question then?

You should be a politician one day.

Reality: There are more good people than bad people.
Currently: Good people have guns, bad people have guns.
You propose: Take guns away from most of the good people. (Criminals will get guns any way they please, they already break the law.)
Logic: ???????
Profit!The whole point of what I'm saying is that the line between being a "good" person and being a "bad" person can get strikingly close.

But, I see that you are opting to ignore that part...

Extremely different cultures.We both have a Western culture and have many similarities so we can't be so extremely different.

No one, Carole? Seriously? No one?Yes, no one.

And showing me a photo of Nazi's isn't going to convince me, btw.

And you claim I've created a sad world for myself! But hey, if you really think we'd be better off without the right to kill people, then go ahead, don't kill anybody. I prefer my head without holes in it.A psychologist called Milgram (1963) highlighted that only a ridiculously small amount of people would have actually disobeyed orders to shoot/gas or to kill in another manner in Nazi Germany. So, once again, the line between "good" people and "bad" people is strikingly thin.

Not at all, because some people do have it coming. Hypothetical situation:

Man breaks into my house. Man has a gun, so do I. Man does not see me. The quickest way to handle the situation would be to shoot him. Ideally, he'd stay alive and simply be incapacitated so that he may spend a long fucking time in prison. However, in the off-chance that I do kill him, would it not be more just than him killing me?Killing another person is never "just" - regardless of what they have done.

Why are you arguing against me on this when I've said exactly the same in another thread to which you agreed?

Because they're not stupid and know that the moment they do, shit will hit the fan.Hmm, let's take a look at Troy Davis then shall we?

A black man is charged with shooting and killing a police officer in the 1980's but he insists that he is innocent. His lawyers refused to represent him the way he wanted to be represented and failed to properly examine evidence even when there was talk of police putting pressure on witnesses. All but 3 of the witnesses have recanted or contradicted their initial statements. One of the witnesses actually said that he had felt pressured by the police to point the finger at Troy and, after talking with them, was given a written statement for him to sign without anyone reading it to him when he couldn't even read! Some witnesses who wanted to tell the truth were vilified in court. There is no physical evidence against him either.
Despite all of this, he was charged with murder and has been on death row for 15 years.

Now, how is this at all lawful?
How is this a demonstration of the USA abiding by their own laws that grant everyone the right to a fair trial?

Sorry, but you don't get to talk about the Constitution after spending a few pages writing about why all guns should be banned.Hmm...actually I do get to talk about the Constitution. You just won't accept it.

Something here has failed spectacularly, but I don't think you need to look too far beyond this thread. :rolleyes:Lol, yeah, it's your ability to answer that simple question properly that has failed spectacularly.

My question still stands: If guns were to be used to bring the authorities into check, why haven't they been used yet?

Wow, Carole! Quote me out of context! That's real fucking professional!Oh, I must be headed for a career in politics then lol.

Actually, I was simply pointing out that a gun isn't essential for protection and your sentence (with and without the following one) captured that.
The sentence that followed simply elaborated that if more than a certain distance existed between you and the person aiming the gun at you then you wouldn't have a chance of disarming them.

Batman has always been about being incorruptable, and so Batman Beyond taking place in the future means that it really doesn't matter what canon it's in.Thank you for completely misreading and misunderstanding what I was saying *claps* well done

And Tim, you really should consider this if you are to preach that all that's required to keep children safe around guns is a good education in gun safety:
What if I've taught my kids not to touch a gun if they find one?
A number of studies [9] (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn9), [10 (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn10)], [11 (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn11)], [12 (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/gunsc.htm#edn12)], suggest that even kids who are trained not to touch guns can't resist, and that parents have unrealistic expectations about their kids' behavior around guns. That's why parents are encouraged to keep guns unloaded and locked separately from ammunition , and to ask about guns at the houses where their children play. Here are links to the full text or abstracts of the studies:

What do boys do when they find a real gun? (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/1247)
"They're Too Smart for That": Predicting What Children Would Do in the Presence of Guns (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/e109)
Teaching firearm safety to children: Failure of a program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11943968)
A firearm safety program for children: They just can't say no (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8856516)

-- From http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm#risk

[theOperaGhost]

The actus reus would be you shooting him in the torso. Also, mens rea does not simply mean that you have to premeditate your actions - if you do something to someone and it is a virtual certainty that the other person will die because of it, that is also classed as having intent (See Nedrick rule and R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003])

I think we all know what the actus reus is, Carole. Mens rea cannot be so clear. If my life is being threatened, my intent is going to be to defend myself and possibly inflict personal injury on whomever is attacking me physically. If I commit homicide, it is justifiable.

A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

[Sapphire]

I think we all know what the actus reus is, Carole. Mens rea cannot be so clear. If my life is being threatened, my intent is going to be to defend myself and possibly inflict personal injury on whomever is attacking me physically. If I commit homicide, it is justifiable.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
That is a huge difference between the laws of your country and the laws of mine then - neither of us are wrong in what we have said.
And once again, I am reminded of why I am proud to be British.
I strongly oppose the killing of anyone and abhor any attempts to justify it.

[theOperaGhost]

That is a huge difference between the laws of your country and the laws of mine then - neither of us are wrong in what we have said.
And once again, I am reminded of why I am proud to be British.
I strongly oppose the killing of anyone and abhor any attempts to justify it.

It's also a very different culture. They may both be western cultures, however America was founded on violence and rebellion. Violence is in our culture. Americans have a fascination with violence. This is where our culture is so different. This is why different cultures view Americans as barbaric people and why Americans' general views on Europeans are that they are pansies/pussies.

There can't be a worldwide law, since there are so many different cultures with different social norms. Making a worldwide code of law would impede so heavily on so many cultures that it is simply impossible to do.

In American culture, self defense is necessary. What kind of place would this be if everyone was simply submissive to any aggressor?

I seriously can't believe that anyone in their right mind would not defend themselves by possibly fatal means if they're in imminent danger of being seriously harmed or killed.

Let's take an example that is a lot less violent. School bullying and fights. From what I see on VT, bullying seems to be worse of a problem in the UK than it is here in America (yes, it happens in America, but I'm using what I see on VT). In America (at least when I was growing up and generations before mine) we're taught by our parents to stand up for yourself and fight back (although that's discouraged by schools). I have no idea how kids are taught in the UK when it comes to standing up for yourself or not, but I'm guessing it's more non-violent than in America. That's the difference in our cultures.

You are proud to be British and I'm glad you are proud of that. I'm proud to be American...let me be American and let me have the guns that my Constitution allows me to have.

[Sapphire]

It's also a very different culture. They may both be western cultures, however America was founded on violence and rebellion. Violence is in our culture. Americans have a fascination with violence. This is where our culture is so different. This is why different cultures view Americans as barbaric people and why Americans' general views on Europeans are that they are pansies/pussies.Every culture began with violence in some form. Violence between tribes, countries etc.
Britain has a violent history - very violent in parts - but that doesn't mean that we are destined to carry that on and should justify violence.
It is the enthusiasm and remorselessness that some Americans have towards violence that affects how we see Americans.

There can't be a worldwide law, since there are so many different cultures with different social norms. Making a worldwide code of law would impede so heavily on so many cultures that it is simply impossible to do. Never have I said that there should be worldwide legal system.
But that doesn't mean that in some countries people should be able to violate the human rights of others.

In American culture, self defense is necessary. What kind of place would this be if everyone was simply submissive to any aggressor? Self defense is one thing but killing is a completely different one. If you kill someone while acting in self defense then it should be taken into account that you weren't the aggressor but it should not be used to justify or excuse the action.

I seriously can't believe that anyone in their right mind would not defend themselves by possibly fatal means if they're in imminent danger of being seriously harmed or killed. That's your problem then.

Let's take an example that is a lot less violent. School bullying and fights. From what I see on VT, bullying seems to be worse of a problem in the UK than it is here in America (yes, it happens in America, but I'm using what I see on VT). In America (at least when I was growing up and generations before mine) we're taught by our parents to stand up for yourself and fight back (although that's discouraged by schools). I have no idea how kids are taught in the UK when it comes to standing up for yourself or not, but I'm guessing it's more non-violent than in America. That's the difference in our cultures. You are using what you see here to compare our cultures? Lol, good luck.
What we see here is not enough to draw significant conclusions on the culture in the USA or the UK.
Otherwise, it would be fair to say that the USA is full of kids who want to (and actually do) have sexual relations with family members.
You are proud to be British and I'm glad you are proud of that. I'm proud to be American...let me be American and let me have the guns that my Constitution allows me to have.
I do let you. But this is a debate and so I am debating.

[Sage]

*sigh* If I may, let me just summarize this entire debate.

Guns, as with many things, is a debate over liberties. As I said before, with any liberty, it can be abused. The only reasoning to take away the liberty is an assumption and judgment that people are too stupid/foolish/irresponsible to not abuse it, and so it's a privilege lost for the sake of 'safety', whether quantifiable or just illusionary. My apologies if I think highly of people, but I'm not going to give up one of my freedoms because other people might abuse it- Nor should anyone lose their freedoms because I might abuse mine.

[Sapphire]

*sigh* If I may, let me just summarize this entire debate.

Guns, as with many things, is a debate over liberties. As I said before, with any liberty, it can be abused. The only reasoning to take away the liberty is an assumption and judgment that people are too stupid/foolish/irresponsible to not abuse it, and so it's a privilege lost for the sake of 'safety', whether quantifiable or just illusionary. My apologies if I think highly of people, but I'm not going to give up one of my freedoms because other people might abuse it- Nor should anyone lose their freedoms because I might abuse mine.
If you thought highly of people then you wouldn't need a gun for protection.

I would still like an answer to this though: If guns were to be used to bring the authorities into check, why haven't they been used yet?

[Sage]

If you thought highly of people then you wouldn't need a gun for protection.

I think highly of the majority of people. You, however, don't.

I would still like an answer to this though: If guns were to be used to bring the authorities into check, why haven't they been used yet?

Because authorities haven't stepped over their bounds yet. Democrats don't really like what republicans do and republicans don't really like what democrats do. It's politics as usual.

[CaptainObvious]

America should ban many types of guns entirely. Of course, the 2nd Amendment precludes that, sadly. It needs to be amended; its implicit purpose of allowing popular uprising against government is no longer empirically possible hundreds of years later and the effect of constitutional limits on gun control has created significant gun crime and exacerbated many other problems.

The fact is, the telling argument for guns now is that they are available generally, to criminals and others, and the safety they provide their legitimate owners is so useful as to warrant the sacrifice to public order of their legality. But that's just not true. America produces and sells almost all the guns on this continent; if America were to ban guns of most types except for law enforcement, their availability to criminals would vanish, with time. Almost no guns get into criminal hands via diversion from law enforcement. In countries where such bans are actually in place, they tend to work well, so long as the country does not border somewhere with much looser laws. For example, in Canada, we still have gun control issues in spite of our bans because of the large and porous border with America.

Now, I don't advocate blanket gun bans. Hunting, for example, is a still-valid use of weapons. However, handguns, for example, are something that I think arguably should be banned from private ownership entirely, to reduce their existence outside of law enforcement hands.

[Sapphire]

I think highly of the majority of people. You, however, don't.I don't think that everywhere I go (even in my own home) I'm going to have a gun pointed in my face by a criminal.

On the other hand, you think so highly of people as a majority that you feel you need a gun for protection even in your own home...*thumbs up*

Because authorities haven't stepped over their bounds yet. Democrats don't really like what republicans do and republicans don't really like what democrats do. It's politics as usual.
Lol.
So enforcing people to disappear and subjecting them to torture isn't overstepping the mark?
Threatening witnesses into giving false testimonies isn't overstepping the mark?
Vilifying witnesses in court because they wanted to say what honestly happened isn't overstepping the mark?

[Sage]

The fact is, the telling argument for guns now is that they are available generally, to criminals and others, and the safety they provide their legitimate owners is so useful as to warrant the sacrifice to public order of their legality. But that's just not true. America produces and sells almost all the guns on this continent; if America were to ban guns of most types except for law enforcement, their availability to criminals would vanish, with time. Almost no guns get into criminal hands via diversion from law enforcement. In countries where such bans are actually in place, they tend to work well, so long as the country does not border somewhere with much looser laws. For example, in Canada, we still have gun control issues in spite of our bans because of the large and porous border with America.

You, sir, know nothing of the underground weapons market. Again, your side of the argument is debating on unrealistic ideals. Criminals will get guns one way or another. It doesn't matter if they obtain them through legal means or illegal means, they will get them, and if you think stopping the sale of all guns in the US (don't even get me STARTED on the economic implications of such a profoundly stupid idea) will stop such people, you are incredibly deluded.

I don't think that everywhere I go (even in my own home) I'm going to have a gun pointed in my face by a criminal.

And yet you go on, page after page, talking about how you'll have a gun pointed in your face by a law abiding citizen!

On the other hand, you think so highly of people as a majority that you feel you need a gun for protection even in your own home...*thumbs up*

Minorities are can be just as dangerous as majorities. Most people aren't criminals. That doesn't mean I don't want to keep myself safe from criminals.

Lol.
So enforcing people to disappear and subjecting them to torture isn't overstepping the mark?
Threatening witnesses into giving false testimonies isn't overstepping the mark?
Vilifying witnesses in court because they wanted to say what honestly happened isn't overstepping the mark?

By my definition, they are, but in those instances, an armed uprising would cause more trouble than it is worth- Especially given that a lot of people of different political viewpoints disagree on some of them. The second amendment is in place to prevent tyranny- dictatorship. We can vote our problems away now and discuss our differences and disagreements. Should the US no longer be a democracy, however, then a revolt is imminent.

You're still ignoring the point I made. You claim I think poorly of people because I'd rather be armed when confronting an armed criminal, and yet you want to take away something from good people because they might abuse it. Do you not see how your reasoning can be used to justify ludicrous things?

Democracy means power to the people. Disarming the population and trusting the government with dangerous weapons is not a balance of power.

What if I were to say that nobody should be allowed to vote without taking a political sciences course? Would you not say that mislead masses electing a stupid leader that does terrible things to the entire world is not worse than a few shots to the head?

[CaptainObvious]

You, sir, know nothing of the underground weapons market. Again, your side of the argument is debating on unrealistic ideals. Criminals will get guns one way or another. It doesn't matter if they obtain them through legal means or illegal means, they will get them, and if you think stopping the sale of all guns in the US (don't even get me STARTED on the economic implications of such a profoundly stupid idea) will stop such people, you are incredibly deluded.

Alright then sweetheart, where do most of the weapons on the underground market come from? If you're casting for an answer here, it's very simple: diversion from the legal market!

The statement that "criminals will get guns one way or another" is exactly that which I am arguing against, and simply repeating it doesn't make it more true. If there is no legal market for handguns; if all handguns in the country are in law enforcement hands, how will a criminal get a handgun? Smuggling? From where?

America is the largest gun producer and market on the continent. If it bans certain types of guns, they will largely disappear on this continent with proactive law enforcement. Note that the flow of guns across intracontinental borders in North America is almost invariably from America to Canada and Mexico, not vice versa. Your premise that criminals will always have access to guns no matter what is, therefore, fundamentally flawed. Yes, a very small number of criminals with power and organization would likely be able to obtain such weaponry regardless of any laws, but those type of criminals are not your average home invading robber against whom all the posters here purport to require guns to defend.

Oh, and regarding economic implications: what are the numbers? My personal prescription is to legalize marijuana and recoup revenues and economic activity thusly, but even if it doesn't equate to the revenue lost, loss of economic activity is not in and of itself a sufficient argument for legality of guns.

[Sapphire]

And yet you go on, page after page, talking about how you'll have a gun pointed in your face by a law abiding citizen!No, I was showing you and the other pro-gun people in this thread that tests and background checks won't curb the occurrence of gun crime since that has been a restriction that nearly everyone of you have been in favour of.

Minorities are can be just as dangerous as majorities. Most people aren't criminals. That doesn't mean I don't want to keep myself safe from criminals.Fair play but when owning a gun and having it at home triples your likelihood of your home being a murder scene, you have to wonder.

By my definition, they are, but in those instances, an armed uprising would cause more trouble than it is worth- Especially given that a lot of people of different political viewpoints disagree on some of them. The second amendment is in place to prevent tyranny- dictatorship. We can vote our problems away now and discuss our differences and disagreements. Should the US no longer be a democracy, however, then a revolt is imminent.So weapons are only to be used against the government when it has adopted to take a non-democratic path?
Since a dictatorship would disarm you all, how would that one work?

You're still ignoring the point I made. You claim I think poorly of people because I'd rather be armed when confronting an armed criminal, and yet you want to take away something from good people because they might abuse it. Do you not see how your reasoning can be used to justify ludicrous things?You have misunderstood my point completely.
I think that everyone is safer when guns are banned. The likelihood of being shot intentionally or by accident goes down when you and your family members don't own a gun. As does the likelihood that you will witness/commit or be a victim of a murder.

What I've been trying to show people is that the distinction that has been made between "good" people (law abiding citizens) and "bad" people (criminals) is that the line that separates one from the other is very thin and that tests/background checks etc can't predict the future and don't take that thin line into account.

Democracy means power to the people. Disarming the population and trusting the government with dangerous weapons is not a balance of power.A democracy means that the people have political power as well as the government. It aims to create an open forum.
The situation doesn't become dangerous if the government have weapons and the people don't. It becomes dangerous when the government use weapons and laws to frighten the public into silently obeying.

What if I were to say that nobody should be allowed to vote without taking a political sciences course?Then you would be making restrictions that stop the country being a democracy and you would have an uprising of sorts to deal with.

Would you not say that mislead masses electing a stupid leader that does terrible things to the entire world is not worse than a few shots to the head?In that type of instance, action should be taken by the citizens as well as the forces (e.g police, army etc) before its too late. Otherwise, external assistance would be required.
No one deserves to die at all and death should be avoided at all costs - this is where you can't understand my viewpoint.

[Sage]

No one deserves to die at all and death should be avoided at all costs

Why?

[Tiberius]

They aren't isolated incidences, they are a sample of incidents where the gun(s) involved was/were obtained completely legally.

The statistic that a house with a gun in it is three times more likely to be the scene of a murder than a house without one illustrates that owning a gun is strongly linked with an increased likelihood of witnessing/committing or being victim to a murder. Does this invovle the owner or a resident of the home being killed or an intruder? I know that the intruder is more likey to be killed and the owner of the home is more likely to survive if a gun is present in the house.

All I have to say to that is: lol!
A subjective view of the world cannot be properly used in a debate - otherwise it would quickly become just an argument.

HAHA, please heed your own advice. Hypocrite.

The whole point of what I'm saying is that the line between being a "good" person and being a "bad" person can get strikingly close.
So, you are willing to strip the rights of the majority because some nuts kill people using a weapon? Should we ban food? I know that kills people too.
Looky at this little peice of information on that: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no5/mead.htm
In addition, "Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries." Hmmmm...makes one think, doesn't it?

We both have a Western culture and have many similarities so we can't be so extremely different.
Apperently, we do. You don't seem to understand that Americans want to keep their guns and that they are actually good for things. Much unlike our European "counterparts."

And showing me a photo of Nazi's isn't going to convince me, btw.
Ah, it should. During the Nazi take-over in Germany, they seized all the guns with an excuse that they weren't required and that they caused and and where dangerous- exactly the arguement that you are making now...

A psychologist called Milgram (1963) highlighted that only a ridiculously small amount of people would have actually disobeyed orders to shoot/gas or to kill in another manner in Nazi Germany. So, once again, the line between "good" people and "bad" people is strikingly thin. Your arguement procludes the lack of morals and....uh oh...thought of self preservation on the part of the individual...SHOCKING!

Hmm, let's take a look at Troy Davis then shall we?

A black man is charged with shooting and killing a police officer in the 1980's but he insists that he is innocent. His lawyers refused to represent him the way he wanted to be represented and failed to properly examine evidence even when there was talk of police putting pressure on witnesses. All but 3 of the witnesses have recanted or contradicted their initial statements. One of the witnesses actually said that he had felt pressured by the police to point the finger at Troy and, after talking with them, was given a written statement for him to sign without anyone reading it to him when he couldn't even read! Some witnesses who wanted to tell the truth were vilified in court. There is no physical evidence against him either.
Despite all of this, he was charged with murder and has been on death row for 15 years.

Now, how is this at all lawful?
How is this a demonstration of the USA abiding by their own laws that grant everyone the right to a fair trial?
*cough* BULLLSHIT *cough* There is NO evidence that he was not given a fair trial and people retract their statements all the time in order to play the balance of power.
Hmm...actually I do get to talk about the Constitution. You just won't accept it.Ummm...no. You don't get to talk about it since you are not an American citizen and you are treating it like a shit-ridden peice of toilet paper. Thanks for playing. :)

My question still stands: If guns were to be used to bring the authorities into check, why haven't they been used yet?
They have. Take for instance a recent shooting of 4 police officers in Tacoma, Washington. They were in a coffee shop drinking coffee(what a surprise) when a disgruntled man burst into the shop killing two of the officers instantly and shooting the third in seconds. The fourth one managed to get out to the parking lot and have a gun battle with the man in which he lost. He murdered these cops because of injustice of the system. Another example comes my my home town in Rochester, NY. A man named Frank Garcia was accused of sexual abuse in a private setting and was dissmissed from his job by an administrative descision that didn't follow due-process in court. According to New York State law, you aren't allowed to work in a any type of medical facility, school or daycares if you have been accused of said crime(but not convicted). Enraged over the fact that his life was destroyed by two women, he went on a shooting spree in two City's and killed 4 people and wounded 2 others who were directly responsible for this. There's your holly-jolly fucking example.

Actually, I was simply pointing out that a gun isn't essential for protection and your sentence (with and without the following one) captured that.
The sentence that followed simply elaborated that if more than a certain distance existed between you and the person aiming the gun at you then you wouldn't have a chance of disarming them.
If you are in a confrontation with a person that has a gun and you are too far away to safely dissarm them, that's were a gun comes into play. What a concept. What are you going to do otherwise, try to bite their trigger hand off?

And here comes the clincher. "Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists." (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html)
In reality, the Swiss really have a homicide rate of .6% and yet every male over the age of 18 has a fully automatic assult rifle in their home...how in the world did that happen? In compairison, "According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population." England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000." (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html)
If England had a lower homicide rate when it had no gun control laws and now has a higher himicide rate without them, how does out-lawing guns make things safer?

[Sapphire]

Lol, I love how you've only picked a single point from my whole post.
Why?
Can you give life to those who have died but deserve to live? No.
So should you be able to take life away from those who you deem to not deserve it just because you can? No. Not in my opinion, anyway.

[2D]

Chris wins with the facts. Game over.

[Sage]

Lol, I love how you've only picked a single point from my whole post.

Because you make it clear that this must be the main point we disagree on, so I'd rather debate big ideas than anal little details.

Can you give life to those who have died but deserve to live? No.

But according to you, everyone deserves to live.

So should you be able to take life away from those who you deem to not deserve it just because you can?

Yes, though not because I 'just can'- but because it is a necessary sacrifice taken to protect those who have not done anything wrong.

[Ripplemagne]

No, you don't and Deschain has quite nicely pointed that out for us

Wow. Nit pick semantics. Alright, theoretically, you can. Not going to work, but you can.

When there are different universes and therefore different stories for Batman, how do you win with that?

Obviously, you missed the fact that the point you were making is stupid. Supposition over the future of the Batman series when every future installment of the series has shown him as a continued hero just demonstrates that you're desperate to find a point here.

And since when have I called anyone in this thread a rapist? Please, go and learn to read.

Implication, butter cup. Stop focusing so much on semantics and you might be able to win a debate.

A staunch defender of people's rights, I see...

Lets be realistic with ourselves. Our world is competitive and there are bad people in it. Calling the world sunshine and unicorns in a debate over serious issues only delays reasonable advancement.

There are bad people who want to hurt me. I want the level field even, so that I can defend myself. To do so, I need to neutralize my enemy combatant. If they are alive, great. If they're dead, too bad. They shouldn't have tried to hurt me.

This is basic human logic that we are all imparted with.

[theOperaGhost]

The situation doesn't become dangerous if the government have weapons and the people don't. It becomes dangerous when the government use weapons and laws to frighten the public into silently obeying.

This statement right here loses the debate for you, really. "It becomes dangerous when the government uses weapons and laws to frighten the public into silently obeying." Hmm...How do you propose the government is going to ban guns? By using weapons and laws? Mhmm....Do you think most Americans are just going to submissively give up their guns if they are banned? No. The government will be required to use weapons and laws to get guns away from the law abiding citizens. So many people will die in the process of taking away the guns, that it would most certainly be counter-active. Americans will not willingly give up their guns! Banning guns would be one of the most dangerous situations our government would ever get us in. You lose.

[nick]

This statement right here loses the debate for you, really. "It becomes dangerous when the government uses weapons and laws to frighten the public into silently obeying." Hmm...How do you propose the government is going to ban guns? By using weapons and laws? Mhmm....Do you think most Americans are just going to submissively give up their guns if they are banned? No. The government will be required to use weapons and laws to get guns away from the law abiding citizens. So many people will die in the process of taking away the guns, that it would most certainly be counter-active. Americans will not willingly give up their guns! Banning guns would be one of the most dangerous situations our government would ever get us in. You lose.
Jared that makes no sense, its contradictory. If the citizens did not hand in their guns in that situation by very definition they are not law abiding citizens.

[theOperaGhost]

Jared that makes no sense, its contradictory. If the citizens did not hand in their guns in that situation by very definition they are not law abiding citizens.

Seriously Nick? Law abiding citizens turn to criminals just by the passing of the law. The government would essentially turn every American into a criminal. This would obviously cause an upheaval of the entire country of America. It is unrealistic to ban guns and, like I said, it would be dangerous.

When law enforcement tried to retrieve everyone's guns, do you think many Americans would give them up? Not without a fight (basically what I said in my post). Basically, the police will be forced to use force on the citizens. Plus, I'm guessing owning a gun would be a felony (since owning one illegally is already a felony in the US), so that means every gun owning American would be sentenced to a minimum of 1 year in prison...yeah...good luck with putting millions of people in the already over populated prisons.

[Sage]

Jared that makes no sense, its contradictory. If the citizens did not hand in their guns in that situation by very definition they are not law abiding citizens.

They would be, because a tyranny would be needed for that to happen in the US. I don't live there myself, but at least I try to learn things about the country before I defend it in a debate. Try proposing getting rid of the 2nd amendment. The sheer amount of ridicule you will receive will be deafening.

[CaptainObvious]

Hey Deschain, mind not ignoring the rather substantive and telling rebuttal of what you said that I posted?

I'm still waiting for someone from the "but criminals get guns regardless of laws!" camp to explain to me where all these guns are supposed to come from if there is no legal market on the continent from which to divert them.

Seriously Nick? Law abiding citizens turn to criminals just by the passing of the law. The government would essentially turn every American into a criminal. This would obviously cause an upheaval of the entire country of America. It is unrealistic to ban guns and, like I said, it would be dangerous.

When law enforcement tried to retrieve everyone's guns, do you think many Americans would give them up? Not without a fight (basically what I said in my post). Basically, the police will be forced to use force on the citizens. Plus, I'm guessing owning a gun would be a felony (since owning one illegally is already a felony in the US), so that means every gun owning American would be sentenced to a minimum of 1 year in prison...yeah...good luck with putting millions of people in the already over populated prisons.

Ironic, since this is precisely as powerful an argument when it comes to legalizing various drugs and yet you seem blind to its utility there...

And here comes the clincher. "Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists." (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html)
In reality, the Swiss really have a homicide rate of .6% and yet every male over the age of 18 has a fully automatic assult rifle in their home...how in the world did that happen? In compairison, "According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population." England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000." (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html)
If England had a lower homicide rate when it had no gun control laws and now has a higher himicide rate without them, how does out-lawing guns make things safer?

Don't be more obtuse than strictly necessary. Obviously the argument about controlling guns reducing homicide is only true ceteris paribus. Whereas, the comparison between Switzerland and the UK is certainly not so.

[theOperaGhost]

Do you think all the guns that currently exist are going to suddenly disappear if guns become illegal? There are currently millions, dare I say billions of guns already manufactured. They aren't going to vanish.

[CaptainObvious]

Do you think all the guns that currently exist are going to suddenly disappear if guns become illegal? There are currently millions, dare I say billions of guns already manufactured. They aren't going to vanish.

Clearly not. A removal program would have to start by banning production, and then incentivizing the voluntary turning in of weapons over a period of time followed eventually by punitive measures. It would not be easy, by any means. But certainly it's possible - if every legal gun owner is as law-abiding as you seem to think.

[theOperaGhost]

We are currently law abiding citizens and we are doing nothing wrong with our guns. We won't be anymore after the government takes over our right to own guns. American will not voluntarily give up their guns and we will all be felons for doing nothing wrong.

[CaptainObvious]

We are currently law abiding citizens and we are doing nothing wrong with our guns. We won't be anymore after the government takes over our right to own guns. American will not voluntarily give up their guns and we will all be felons for doing nothing wrong.

With all due respect, that isn't an argument against anything. Cocaine and heroin junkies were law-abiding citizens before those substances were made illegal, too. And while I think they shouldn't be illegal either, the fact that criminalizing something makes it a crime is... tautological, not a helpful argument.

[nick]

Seriously Nick? Law abiding citizens turn to criminals just by the passing of the law.
Yes, if a new law is passed and people choose to flout it then clearly, and surely beyond any possible argument, they are no longer law abiding citizens. If they are breaking criminal law they are criminals.

Clearly not. A removal program would have to start by banning production, and then incentivizing the voluntary turning in of weapons over a period of time followed eventually by punitive measures. It would not be easy, by any means. But certainly it's possible - if every legal gun owner is as law-abiding as you seem to think.
exactly

[theOperaGhost]

With all due respect, that isn't an argument against anything. Cocaine and heroin junkies were law-abiding citizens before those substances were made illegal, too. And while I think they shouldn't be illegal either, the fact that criminalizing something makes it a crime is... tautological, not a helpful argument.

Just like you're not going to give up pot, I'm not going to give up guns...we'll be criminals together...

Also, I wasn't arguing anything really...I know we would all be criminals...I'm not denying that. Just saying, not very many Americans are going to voluntarily give up their guns.

[The Batman]

Banning and taking away guns is stupid. That will not work anywhere especially in this day and age. All we need is to become more strict on gun control, make it so that it's harder for the criminals to get the firearms and if they have them make it easier to find them. Just saying, "we need to get rid of all guns" is a pointless argument because it'll do more harm than good.

[Rutherford The Brave]

If we ban them, it might just give way to more organized crime, bootlegging ect. It's a hassle.

[CaptainObvious]

If we ban them, it might just give way to more organized crime, bootlegging ect. It's a hassle.

Bootlegging refers to the illegal fermentation, production and/or selling of alcohol. You're telling me you think it's likely large underground gun factories will spring up? Yeah... about that...

The reason bootlegging was such a problem is that anyone can ferment alcohol with easy materials and a simple process. One can't just ferment a gun.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Bootlegging refers to the illegal fermentation, production and/or selling of alcohol. You're telling me you think it's likely large underground gun factories will spring up? Yeah... about that...

The reason bootlegging was such a problem is that anyone can ferment alcohol with easy materials and a simple process. One can't just ferment a gun.

I used a wrong word sorry, It's entirely possible for that situation to happen you cannot say that it wont. Gangs use guns, if they cannot get guns, they might as well build ones. I know one cannot ferment a gun, but with money and enough people you can build guns to sell under the table.

[Cloud]

If we ban them, it might just give way to more organized crime, bootlegging ect. It's a hassle.

And in England crossbows are legal at 17 so thats just gonna cause more shit by people taking a medieval stance on crime. think whatll do more damage
a 9mm round
or a huge crossbow bolt...
its like taking a step back in banning guns
its not the guns that should be banned
but the rounds used in them

9mm rounds are survivable if you shoot in the right place
but if a guys defending his hous with say a shotgun thn the guy on the other ends not gonna walk out.
so
shells
safe(ish) rounds
pretty clear decision if you hav any kind of morals...

[Rutherford The Brave]

And in England crossbows are legal at 17 so thats just gonna cause more shit by people taking a medieval stance on crime. think whatll do more damage
a 9mm round
or a huge crossbow bolt...
its like taking a step back in banning guns
its not the guns that should be banned
but the rounds used in them

9mm rounds are survivable if you shoot in the right place
but if a guys defending his hous with say a shotgun thn the guy on the other ends not gonna walk out.
so
shells
safe(ish) rounds
pretty clear decision if you hav any kind of morals...

True.

Also zip guns are easy to make. The zodiac killer in New york was able to create zip guns and he was a high school drop out with no knowledges of mechanics.

[The Batman]

To add to my point if you regulate the shit out of guns and make it harder for criminals to get more guns then you're also lessening the need for guns as protection which drops the amount of guns found in households. You don't have to ban guns to get rid of them because really guns aren't the problem it's the people that have them.

[2D]

I'm still waiting for someone from the "but criminals get guns regardless of laws!" camp to explain to me where all these guns are supposed to come from if there is no legal market on the continent from which to divert them.

I shall tell you. Drugs are illegal correct? They are still aplenty everywhere no? The same goes for guns. If a prison inmate can build a gun with some plumbing, then a criminal with resources and the knowledge to build guns obviously will.

[Cloud]

True.

Also zip guns are easy to make. The zodiac killer in New york was able to create zip guns and he was a high school drop out with no knowledges of mechanics.

exactly
people will always find weapons
its just a matter of whats used with them
that can define life or death

so allow the weapons
to stop peopl making their own
but just limit the types of ammunition to wheen them into safer less lethal options

that being said
who the fuck needs automatic weapons to defend themselves with
how many attackers are they expected
automatic weapons are stupid in the home
there a risk to both you and the person your shooting aswell as anything else in the room
cos your fucked if that recoil kicks in and your still squeezing.
so why allow automatic weapons
its just asking for trouble

[CaptainObvious]

I shall tell you. Drugs are illegal correct? They are still aplenty everywhere no? The same goes for guns. If a prison inmate can build a gun with some plumbing, then a criminal with resources and the knowledge to build guns obviously will.

That's not a valid comparison. Most drugs are everywhere because they're simple to create. Someone can grow marijuana, tobacco or ferment alcohol just about anywhere, and while it becomes harder with more complex drugs it's not that much harder.

I call bullshit on the notion that most people can build a quality gun on their own. Yes, you can make a shitty single-fire gun, but that's not nearly the same thing. Criminals aren't going to be manufacturing semiautomatic handguns at home.

[Rutherford The Brave]

That's not a valid comparison. Most drugs are everywhere because they're simple to create. Someone can grow marijuana, tobacco or ferment alcohol just about anywhere, and while it becomes harder with more complex drugs it's not that much harder.

I call bullshit on the notion that most people can build a quality gun on their own. Yes, you can make a shitty single-fire gun, but that's not nearly the same thing. Criminals aren't going to be manufacturing semiautomatic handguns at home.

Did you not hear me when I said "Your going to need people" more money and more people could equal better guns. A zip gun is a gun, if you are hit in the head you are going to kill a person just like you would with a normal gun. Also since zip guns do not leave grooves it can be hard to tell who the murderer was, which means ultimatly more people can get away with murder.

[The Batman]

Just to let you know with the internet you can pretty much find out how to make anything including a gun. I just search google and i found a link to make a good quality .32/.380 machine pistol.

[Cloud]

Yes, you can make a shitty single-fire gun, but that's not nearly the same thing. Criminals aren't going to be manufacturing semiautomatic handguns at home.

erm
youd be surprised what can be found on the internet
if people want to make things
they dam well will

theres displays in prisons of guns made by the prisoners out of what they had access to
so if they can do tht
imagine what people can do with proper tools
proper supplies
and the proper instructions

[Ripplemagne]

No one wanna tackle my article on this subject? No takers? Yes? Yes? No?

[CaptainObvious]

Did you not hear me when I said "Your going to need people" more money and more people could equal better guns. A zip gun is a gun, if you are hit in the head you are going to kill a person just like you would with a normal gun. Also since zip guns do not leave grooves it can be hard to tell who the murderer was, which means ultimatly more people can get away with murder.

No, ultimately less people will get away with murder because the weapons are so much less effective. Yes, a direct shot to the head will probably still kill, but the accuracy makes that direct shot much less likely, and the limitations on clip size mean that the criminal doesn't likely get too many more chances than one.

erm
youd be surprised what can be found on the internet
if people want to make things
they dam well will

theres displays in prisons of guns made by the prisoners out of what they had access to
so if they can do tht
imagine what people can do with proper tools
proper supplies
and the proper instructions

Paragraphs and punctuation are wonderful things. And if you're serioulsy purporting it to be likely that people could self-produce weapons anywhere near as effective as professionally-manufactured guns, then... yeah, to say I'd be surprised if that was true is an understatement.

Just to let you know with the internet you can pretty much find out how to make anything including a gun. I just search google and i found a link to make a good quality .32/.380 machine pistol.

I guess that depends on your definition of "good quality".

[Rutherford The Brave]

No, ultimately less people will get away with murder because the weapons are so much less effective. Yes, a direct shot to the head will probably still kill, but the accuracy makes that direct shot much less likely, and the limitations on clip size mean that the criminal doesn't likely get too many more chances than one.




Paragraphs and punctuation are wonderful things. And if you're serioulsy purporting it to be likely that people could self-produce weapons anywhere near as effective as professionally-manufactured guns, then... yeah, to say I'd be surprised if that was true is an understatement.



I guess that depends on your definition of "good quality".
So what? I mean said criminal is getting away with crimes, because no one could link him directly to the crime. Guns aren't always about killing, so if a criminal is doing enough to put you down to take your money. That gun has done it's job.
Leave Cal alone, and you do not know its possible.

[2D]

That's not a valid comparison. Most drugs are everywhere because they're simple to create. Someone can grow marijuana, tobacco or ferment alcohol just about anywhere, and while it becomes harder with more complex drugs it's not that much harder.

I call bullshit on the notion that most people can build a quality gun on their own. Yes, you can make a shitty single-fire gun, but that's not nearly the same thing. Criminals aren't going to be manufacturing semiautomatic handguns at home.

Did you not read the part where I said a prison inmate built a gun? If they can make one, then just imagine what 100 people and millions of dollars could make? Guns aren't going to go away. You ban them in America, they'll get smuggled in from Mexico and Canada. It's just not feasible.

[Sage]

You can take away people's material possessions as much as you like, but it's not going to solve any problems. Guns don't kill people- People kill people, with guns, and countless other things to a far greater degree.