The Right to Bear Arms

[pokeslob]

unless you have a lisence to carry a concealed weapon... which is a pain in the ass to get I believe.

oh it is... -.-

 

[Jamesredsilver]

I think that the populace should have the right to bear limited arms. Leave the heavy stuff to the military and police force, but a lot of the people who'd misuse weapons are going to get the weapons anyway. So the "right to bear arms" more often is a question on the right to self-defense.

 

[NeonTidalWave]

I ask you then, to run the numbers and look at the percentages.

Can't talk for the US, but I would presume the UK would suffice, considering (bar the US Amendment) how similar the two countries are?

((Quoting my own statistics from an earlier post here))

Gun crime in the UK has been going down year on year by about 13% for the last three years. More guns? Nope. The most recent public statistics are from 2006/2007, shown here (last bullet point).

In the UK only 8% of homocides involve guns.

In America? 65%.

Difference? Gun availability. So there you have it, more guns does equal more gun crime. Shocking, isn't it?

Gotten from here.

Guns were banned in the UK fairly recently, and since then gun crime has been decreasing. There you go, proof that the banning of 'civilian guns' decreases the crime rate.

 

[Dlakii]

Eh, I'm not in particular support of the right myself. Not that it directly affects me or anything, but still... At the very least, as others have said, the types of guns available to the general populace should be somewhat limited.

Now, the right to arm bears, that's a different story.

 

[The revolution]

Can't talk for the US, but I would presume the UK would suffice, considering (bar the US Amendment) how similar the two countries are?

((Quoting my own statistics from an earlier post here))

Gun crime in the UK has been going down year on year by about 13% for the last three years. More guns? Nope. The most recent public statistics are from 2006/2007, shown here (last bullet point).

In the UK only 8% of homocides involve guns.

In America? 65%.

Difference? Gun availability. So there you have it, more guns does equal more gun crime. Shocking, isn't it?

Gotten from here.

Guns were banned in the UK fairly recently, and since then gun crime has been decreasing. There you go, proof that the banning of 'civilian guns' decreases the crime rate.

Sorry just had to say this

you didn't mention if the murder rates go down with out knowing that you're final point may or may not be true.

lower gun crime doesn't matter if the knife crime goes up.

 

[TTEchidna]

People kill each other regardless. Knives, however, have other uses and thus aren't as incredibly necessary to regulate. Plus it's easier to defend against one. Bullets come at you, you're pretty screwed.

 

[NeonTidalWave]

Sorry just had to say this

you didn't mention if the murder rates go down with out knowing that you're final point may or may not be true.

lower gun crime doesn't matter if the knife crime goes up.

I didn't mention murder rates as a whole, I mentioned homicides where a firearm was involved, sorry if I didn't make it clear as that was what I meant. We're not arguing about crime in general (in which case I'd agree with you), but the right to bear arms, which my statistics show does have an effect on crime involving guns.

Unfortunately yes, people will kill each other regardless of what is available, but I feel a knife, though still very potentially dangerous, is a far less... impulsive weapon if you understand what I mean, and it would be a very slippery if you started trying to regulate something like a knife which people use on a daily basis, as opposed to guns which people don't often use daily.

 

[Phoenicks]

Let's see if I can do the impossible and end this discussion.

Gun Rights make sense. Restricting gun rights will only do more harm than good.

Criminals With Guns
Criminals will always have guns. The thing that makes them criminals is the fact that they are willing to break the law. They will respect gun laws like they respect drug laws. If anything, looser gun laws stop criminals, because more people could stop a criminal with a gun. Who would stop a criminal with a gun ready to kill you if you have no guns? The police can't be depended upon to be there quickly enough.

Violence with a gun
If you really wanted to kill someone, you wouldn't need a gun. If I decided to hurt Bob Smith, all I would need is a knife, or some rope, or my big tough friend, or my own fists. You don't need a gun to kill or hurt someone. Guns help us defend ourselves when we are endangered. Without them, we would be in trouble when we're being attacked.

Guns in comparison to Other Weapons
Some people here said that defending guns is like defending the right to bury mines in your yard. That's not even close to logical. First of all, guns are made to be efficient, and to cause as little damage as is needed for a weapon. Mines and bombs are inherintly destructive, and are best at causing damage. Also, the second amendment doesn't defend extreme weapons like mines. In the American Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v Heller, the last major guns rights case before the court, they interpreted the 2nd amendment to protect the rights of guns that are in common use. It protects the rights of guns that aren't destructive in nature. Bombs and Giant, automatic, flamethrowing, exploding-bullet filled nuclear warheads aren't protected.

The right to bear arms is meant to defend those who use guns responsibly, not the criminals who get weapons anyways. All that is protected are the weapons that are necessary for defense. Seems logical, right?

 

[revolvingscott]

Not really.
Guns = Death
Death = bad
Guns = Bad
That seems more logical to me

 

[NeonTidalWave]

Criminals With Guns
Criminals will always have guns. The thing that makes them criminals is the fact that they are willing to break the law. They will respect gun laws like they respect drug laws. If anything, looser gun laws stop criminals, because more people could stop a criminal with a gun. Who would stop a criminal with a gun ready to kill you if you have no guns? The police can't be depended upon to be there quickly enough.

Um, hate to break it to you, but very few crimes actually involve guns. Compared to all the other, far more likely things a criminal could do to you or your home, the idea that you need a gun for protection is almost laughable. Even in the US, the majority of places don't suffer very high rates of gun crime. I'm sorry but I can not agree with the idea that because some inner-cities have major gun problems that the public at large should be allowed them. The chances of someone coming into your home with a gun and you having a chance to defend yourself are infinitesimal, so that doesn't really work as an argument in my opinion.

Violence with a gun
If you really wanted to kill someone, you wouldn't need a gun. If I decided to hurt Bob Smith, all I would need is a knife, or some rope, or my big tough friend, or my own fists. You don't need a gun to kill or hurt someone. Guns help us defend ourselves when we are endangered. Without them, we would be in trouble when we're being attacked.

I once again would like to point out that we're not debating methods of death here, but gun rights. I don't need cocaine to kill myself, I could use neurofen, but that's irrelevant isn't it? Look at my previous argument to see why you don't need a gun to defend yourself against the 1 in 1,000,000,000 chances you'll be attacked by someone with a gun (obviously if you live in a city etc. it'll be higher, but I think my point still stands in terms of the general public). If you used a gun to defend yourself against someone with a rope or using their firsts you would be punished for unreasonable force, so it wouldn't protect you in those situations.

Guns in comparison to Other Weapons
Some people here said that defending guns is like defending the right to bury mines in your yard. That's not even close to logical. First of all, guns are made to be efficient, and to cause as little damage as is needed for a weapon. Mines and bombs are inherintly destructive, and are best at causing damage. Also, the second amendment doesn't defend extreme weapons like mines. In the American Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v Heller, the last major guns rights case before the court, they interpreted the 2nd amendment to protect the rights of guns that are in common use. It protects the rights of guns that aren't destructive in nature. Bombs and Giant, automatic, flamethrowing, exploding-bullet filled nuclear warheads aren't protected.

Yeah, I won't argue with you there. Except for the idea that guns don't cause 'mass destruction'. I don't want to be distasteful, but Virginia Tech springs to mind. I reckon a mine could probably kill about 30 odd, so they're roughly equal. All depends on circumstances, doesn't it? So really I feel this is a weird an illogical argument here, but I can see what you're saying.

The right to bear arms is meant to defend those who use guns responsibly, not the criminals who get weapons anyways. All that is protected are the weapons that are necessary for defense. Seems logical, right?

But, criminals don't get as many guns if less are available. After guns were outlawed from general use in the UK gun crime and crimes involving guns decreased, and now people who use guns are punished.

So, ban guns, punish criminals who use them, then gun crime will go down, whereas now guns are available, and gun crime continues to rise in the US. See the link?

 

[shining-Celebi]

I believe in responsible gun use becuase after all, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It was once said, the US could never have a terrestial terrorist takeover since so many people have guns. So terrorists would have the army+ citizens to worry about.


By saying "Guns should be illegal" is basically saying "Please, let us be subsceptible to being taken over due to evil people not following the rules and thus taking advantage of the fact that guns are illegal and most people won't have them".
Its the same argument if everyone in the world was kind thered be no war etc....it's impossible and illogical.

All these ideas of Guns being illegal only looks good on paper but wouldn't work in the real world.

 

[Irinya]

It was once said, the US could never have a terrestial terrorist takeover since so many people have guns. So terrorists would have the army+ citizens to worry about.


By saying "Guns should be illegal" is basically saying "Please, let us be subsceptible to being taken over due to evil people not following the rules and thus taking advantage of the fact that guns are illegal and most people won't have them".
Its the same argument if everyone in the world was kind thered be no war etc....it's impossible and illogical.

Sorry to say, but I think the average days of I-shoot-you-you-shoot-me war days are over. If another country would want to take over he U.S.A it would more than likely use economic means to drive it into the ground. So that argument is void in my opinion.

Yes, terrorists are a threat, but they don't want to take over. They want the Western world to die. Which means bombings, where guns are quite useless.

All these ideas of Guns being illegal only looks good on paper but wouldn't work in the real world.

Tell that to the E.U; they seem to be doing fine now.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Let's see if I can do the impossible and end this discussion.

Gun Rights make sense. Restricting gun rights will only do more harm than good.

Criminals With Guns
Criminals will always have guns. The thing that makes them criminals is the fact that they are willing to break the law. They will respect gun laws like they respect drug laws. If anything, looser gun laws stop criminals, because more people could stop a criminal with a gun. Who would stop a criminal with a gun ready to kill you if you have no guns? The police can't be depended upon to be there quickly enough.

Just because you CAN have a gun doesn't mean you WILL have a gun in any given situation. Yeah, there are criminals with guns. There are also criminals with pipe bombs. Should we all have pipe bombs? Uzis? Molotov cocktails? If someone wants you dead, you'll be dead. If not, then it's a crap shoot.

Violence with a gun
If you really wanted to kill someone, you wouldn't need a gun. If I decided to hurt Bob Smith, all I would need is a knife, or some rope, or my big tough friend, or my own fists. You don't need a gun to kill or hurt someone. Guns help us defend ourselves when we are endangered. Without them, we would be in trouble when we're being attacked.

Again...do you ALWAYS have a gun on you? If not, what's to stop someone from killing you at any point in time? If you really think you're in danger of death all the time, then you've got bigger worries than whether or not you can have a gun.

Guns in comparison to Other Weapons
Some people here said that defending guns is like defending the right to bury mines in your yard. That's not even close to logical. First of all, guns are made to be efficient, and to cause as little damage as is needed for a weapon. Mines and bombs are inherintly destructive, and are best at causing damage.

Guns are inherently destructive and are best at causing damage. That's...why they were made. To "cause as little damage as is needed for a weapon" isn't remotely accurate. You want to cause less damage? Use a bow and arrow. Or a crossbow.

Also, the second amendment doesn't defend extreme weapons like mines. In the American Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v Heller, the last major guns rights case before the court, they interpreted the 2nd amendment to protect the rights of guns that are in common use. It protects the rights of guns that aren't destructive in nature. Bombs and Giant, automatic, flamethrowing, exploding-bullet filled nuclear warheads aren't protected.

Define "common use."

The right to bear arms is meant to defend those who use guns responsibly, not the criminals who get weapons anyways. All that is protected are the weapons that are necessary for defense. Seems logical, right?

Sure, it makes sense, but how about limiting guns in the first place so we cut down on crimes of convenience/passion?

It was once said, the US could never have a terrestial terrorist takeover since so many people have guns. So terrorists would have the army+ citizens to worry about.

Uhhh...no terrorists have overtaken England or Japan. Why would the US be an exception?

I believe in responsible gun use becuase after all, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, and they use guns to do the killing. Take away the guns and you at least limit the killing methods.

Its the same argument if everyone in the world was kind thered be no war etc....it's impossible and illogical.

It's neither impossible nor illogical. It might be unlikely. Even unrealistic...but I'd rather work towards a world without violence than just say "fuck it, shit's going down anyway, give me a gun."

All these ideas of Guns being illegal only looks good on paper but wouldn't work in the real world.

As Irinya said...there seem to be plenty of countries doing just fine without them.

 

[Phoenicks]

Originally posted by NeonTidalWave:
Um, hate to break it to you, but very few crimes actually involve guns. Compared to all the other, far more likely things a criminal could do to you or your home, the idea that you need a gun for protection is almost laughable. Even in the US, the majority of places don't suffer very high rates of gun crime. I'm sorry but I can not agree with the idea that because some inner-cities have major gun problems that the public at large should be allowed them. The chances of someone coming into your home with a gun and you having a chance to defend yourself are infinitesimal, so that doesn't really work as an argument in my opinion.

I can't really agree with what you're saying inless I have some hard numbers. I'm trying not to rely on numbers, but if you say you have some numbers that prove me wrong, I'd love to see them. And yes, the chances of needing to defend yourself with a gun are small. They are just as small as setting your house on fire and needing that fire extinguisher you have stored away. Or getting in an accident and needing the insurance you pay for. Or using that home security system that you use while you're away. The gun only needs to protect you once to prove it's worth.

Originally posted by NeonTidalWave:
I once again would like to point out that we're not debating methods of death here, but gun rights. I don't need cocaine to kill myself, I could use neurofen, but that's irrelevant isn't it? Look at my previous argument to see why you don't need a gun to defend yourself against the 1 in 1,000,000,000 chances you'll be attacked by someone with a gun (obviously if you live in a city etc. it'll be higher, but I think my point still stands in terms of the general public). If you used a gun to defend yourself against someone with a rope or using their firsts you would be punished for unreasonable force, so it wouldn't protect you in those situations.

Again, the one time you use a gun to defend yourself makes that gun invaluabe, even if you only need it once. Also, I'm not saying that you need to use the gun against someone every time they attack you. If someone starts a fistfight with you, and you shoot them, you are at wrong and not the other guy. But this doesn't have to do with the right to bear arms, but more with the responsibility that comes with that right. And if you think that other people are too stupid to manage that responsibility, you're not much better than they are.

Originally posted by NeonTidalWave:
Yeah, I won't argue with you there. Except for the idea that guns don't cause 'mass destruction'. I don't want to be distasteful, but Virginia Tech springs to mind. I reckon a mine could probably kill about 30 odd, so they're roughly equal. All depends on circumstances, doesn't it? So really I feel this is a weird an illogical argument here, but I can see what you're saying.

Imagine if a mine had been used to kill all those people. Think about all the extra costs of rebuilding the damaged parts of the school. Also, if a mine had been used, none of the people involved would have had the chance to run or defend themselves. Boom, and they're gone. Now, when the killer used the gun, it meant that if anyone else had had a gun, the threat would have been nuetralized. Sure, some lives would have had to been lost, but losing the life of one killer and the 3 or so people he had time to kill right away don't sound nearly as bad as the 30 (however many people it was) or so people and the killer. Guns rights are protected because guns are not nearly as dangerous as the other weapons people will turn to in desperation.

Originally posted by NeonTidalWave:
But, criminals don't get as many guns if less are available. After guns were outlawed from general use in the UK gun crime and crimes involving guns decreased, and now people who use guns are punished.

So, ban guns, punish criminals who use them, then gun crime will go down, whereas now guns are available, and gun crime continues to rise in the US. See the link?

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying, but what about those gun crimes that still exist? People who illegally have guns would still use them in a fit of heated passion. Also, The UK is an island, where the US isn't. Think about all of the guns that could be smuggled across the Mexican-American boarder that can't be smuggled into the UK. That has a much greater potential for illegal guns. I think we would be much safer with the right to bear arms than without it.

Edit: Sorry GrnMarvl13, didn't see you there until my post was finished, and when I went to respond, Bulbagarden logged me out before I finished. I'll respond to you tomorrow.

Edit 2: Okay, I have time to respond to you now GrnMarvl13.

Originally posted by GrnMarvl13:
Just because you CAN have a gun doesn't mean you WILL have a gun in any given situation. Yeah, there are criminals with guns. There are also criminals with pipe bombs. Should we all have pipe bombs? Uzis? Molotov cocktails? If someone wants you dead, you'll be dead. If not, then it's a crap shoot.

Translation: "You won't always have a gun on you if you need to defend yourself with one. Because I feel like having a gun is a waste for me, having a gun would be a waste, so no one should have guns because it's a waste."

If someone wanted to kill you, and you had a gun, you could stop the other person before he kills you and/or others. Also, if you read on, I say that weapons like pipe bombs aren't defended. The Right to Bear Arms means that we have weapons good enough to protect ourselves, not good enough to cause massive destruction.

Again...do you ALWAYS have a gun on you? If not, what's to stop someone from killing you at any point in time? If you really think you're in danger of death all the time, then you've got bigger worries than whether or not you can have a gun.

The logic I'm getting here is that because the chances of needing a gun to defend yourself are low, you don't really need a gun. That arguement doesn't work in reality. Since the risk for housefires in a city is low, we shouldn't have Fire Departments. There shouldn't be a poison or animal control for those few times when they're needed. Also, here's a link to a vid where the woman in question's parents were killed because the gun she had with her was in her car and not on her person. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related
I think we can safely say that having one killer die wouldn't be nearly as bad as having the killer go on a rampage, kill 30 people, then die.

Guns are inherently destructive and are best at causing damage. That's...why they were made. To "cause as little damage as is needed for a weapon" isn't remotely accurate. You want to cause less damage? Use a bow and arrow. Or a crossbow.

Guns are the best weapon for their intended purpose. They are small enough where you could have one with you when necessary for protection. Yet, they aren't as destructive as other weapons like bombs or flamethrowers. Using a crossbow is unpractical, as people would see that you have it, and then someone with a gun would shoot you before you could even load it. Guns are the best weapon for defense.

Define "common use."

I don't have to. Here's a link to the Supreme Court Ruling on the Guns Rights case in Heller v. D.C. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Also, I think we're smart enough people to know what is and isn't common use. A handgun is in common use, a bazooka or flamethrower is not.

Sure, it makes sense, but how about limiting guns in the first place so we cut down on crimes of convenience/passion?

Yeah, but then imagine all the crimes that would take place with no guns to defend yourself. Sure, there would be less passion crimes, but in areas where an armed killer intends to go on a rampage, imagine all the people who would be killed (ala Virginia Tech).

Guns protect the people who need protecting. The people who would attack with them intentionally can find other ways of getting a gun.

 

[Heroic Sociopath]

(This is going to be long, so feel free to skip it.)
Kay'. First off, let's say a burglar breaks into someones house, figuring that it'll be easier with nobody around, kills the people inside, and takes the stuff. The next night, he does the same. And the next night. And the next. Finally, he's caught by the police. But, before that, he's killed 8 people.
BUT! What if, in the first house, someone had a gun? Then, even if the burglar was shot, a total of 7 deaths could have been avoided. Or, even better, we could have no death, because the would-be burglar knows that there's a chance the person whose house he might break into has a gun. Nobody dies, and we all have a big party with pie and grape Kool-Aid. (Kool-Aid-guy-esque "Oh yeah!")

Now, all you people who believe that guns should be banned because they're made to kill people: two people are murdered. One had their throat slit in their sleep. The other was dispatched with a bullet to their head. They both die, even if the knife was made simply as a tool, as opposed to a weapon. Oh, and both guns and knives were made to damage things. One last thing: By your logic, the police shouldn't be allowed to carry guns either. So, in the first scenario, the burglar would never be caught.

Btw, you know what's ironic? We're on a website for a game for kids, that features death only like, once a game, and here we are talking about killing people.

 

[Phoenicks]

@ det208:

Geez, I go to all the trouble of editing my post because I didn't want to double post, and before I had finished, you posted. I should have waited.

Whatever. I agree with all of what you're saying. You took your argument and made it sound like a plausible, real-life event. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.

Btw, Pokemon isn't just a kid's game. Try saying that it is to some of the other people on this forum.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Translation: "You won't always have a gun on you if you need to defend yourself with one. Because I feel like having a gun is a waste for me, having a gun would be a waste, so no one should have guns because it's a waste."

Noooooo. Because you won't always have a gun to defend you, claiming you need one for defense is flawed, and the only other reason to have one is offense, which we can all agree is bad.

If someone wanted to kill you, and you had a gun, you could stop the other person before he kills you and/or others. Also, if you read on, I say that weapons like pipe bombs aren't defended. The Right to Bear Arms means that we have weapons good enough to protect ourselves, not good enough to cause massive destruction.

But why are guns protected by that? Why not draw the line at crossbows? Bows and arrows? Spears? Uzis? C4? Seems a tad arbitrary.

The logic I'm getting here is that because the chances of needing a gun to defend yourself are low, you don't really need a gun. That arguement doesn't work in reality. Since the risk for housefires in a city is low, we shouldn't have Fire Departments.

Not quite. That would only be valid if I said we didn't need POLICE DEPARTMENTS. Fire department = police department. Gun, in your analogy, would equal fire extinguisher. Of course, fire extinguishers weren't designed to kill people, guns were, so the analogy kind of falls apart.

Also, here's a link to a vid where the woman in question's parents were killed because the gun she had with her was in her car and not on her person.

So we should keep guns legal so we can forget them in our cars and people will die anyway?

I think we can safely say that having one killer die wouldn't be nearly as bad as having the killer go on a rampage, kill 30 people, then die.

True. But many mass murderers have done so using guns they obtained legally. And...few have been stopped by regular people. Usually they end it themselves or the police do.

Yeah, but then imagine all the crimes that would take place with no guns to defend yourself. Sure, there would be less passion crimes, but in areas where an armed killer intends to go on a rampage, imagine all the people who would be killed (ala Virginia Tech).

He bought his gun legally. If guns were more restricted, or illegal, there's no reason to believe he MIGHT not have committed the act. And, even if he was bound and determined to, it would have taken him longer and possibly resulted in him being detected in his efforts to obtain a gun beforehand.

Guns protect the people who need protecting. The people who would attack with them intentionally can find other ways of getting a gun.

But if you limit the avenues through which they can be obtained, you limit the chances. Guns aren't like drugs. You can't grow more in your closet. You can't mix them up using things you buy at the local grocery store. Yes, people will still get them if they're determined to, but look at the lack of explosives-related attacks we have. That's either because guns are easier to obtain, or because we do a good job prohibiting access to explosives. Yes, they still happen on occasion, but it's about limiting the opportunities.

 

[Phoenicks]

@ GrnMarvl13:

Originally posted by GrnMarvl13:
Noooooo. Because you won't always have a gun to defend you, claiming you need one for defense is flawed, and the only other reason to have one is offense, which we can all agree is bad.

You might not carry your gun with you everywhere if you choose to. That doesn't mean that they won't protect you if you have it. If you own a gun, I think you should have enough common sense to know where you do and don't need a gun. When you have that gun and it defends you, its worth is inmeasurable. If you and all the people you love were being attacked by a killer, wouldn't you want a gun with you? Would you want to have to wait for the police to show up, when by that time, somepeople might have already died?

But why are guns protected by that? Why not draw the line at crossbows? Bows and arrows? Spears? Uzis? C4? Seems a tad arbitrary.

Guns are the most efficient at what they do. Again, if you and your loved ones were being attacked by a killer, would you rather have a crossbow, or a gun. The gun could save all of your lives, the crossbow would take too long. If crossbows were better for defense than guns, people would use crossbows. They aren't, so people use guns. Gun Rights are protected because they are the weapon commonly used by people.

Not quite. That would only be valid if I said we didn't need POLICE DEPARTMENTS. Fire department = police department. Gun, in your analogy, would equal fire extinguisher. Of course, fire extinguishers weren't designed to kill people, guns were, so the analogy kind of falls apart.

Fire Departments and Police Departments fall under 2 different categories in the way I'm talking about them. Fire Departments are used in the rare chance there is a fire. Police Departments are used to stop everything from small violations of the law to major criminals. PDs get used much more frequently than FDs. In the same way, you rarely need to use a gun. But if you needed that gun, wouldn't you be glad you had it? If your house was on fire, wouldn't you be glad that the FD exists? Or that you have a fire extinguisher? Guns are to Police as Fire extinguishers are to Firefighters.

So we should keep guns legal so we can forget them in our cars and people will die anyway?

Did you watch the video? I'm pretty sure that by Texas law, she was allowed to have a gun with her, but not inside the restuarant where she needed it. My point is that this law that stopped her from having the gun is a form of gun control. How many people do you think would have died if she had had her gun with her?

True. But many mass murderers have done so using guns they obtained legally. And...few have been stopped by regular people. Usually they end it themselves or the police do.

Give those regular people a gun, and it will be just as effective as giving them a fire extinguisher in a fire. If it doesn't put out the fire, then no harm done, but if the fire is put out, then that person just prevented a lot of damage.

He bought his gun legally. If guns were more restricted, or illegal, there's no reason to believe he MIGHT not have committed the act. And, even if he was bound and determined to, it would have taken him longer and possibly resulted in him being detected in his efforts to obtain a gun beforehand.

I think you said that wrong, as I'm pretty sure you just agreed with me.

Yes, Maybe he would have been detected in his attempts to get a gun. But will that work for all people? Remember that we have a problem with illegal substances traveling across the Mexican-American boarder. I'm sure that some people who really wanted a gun could finda way. Then what would you do, if you were being attacked, and guns were illegal?

But if you limit the avenues through which they can be obtained, you limit the chances. Guns aren't like drugs. You can't grow more in your closet. You can't mix them up using things you buy at the local grocery store. Yes, people will still get them if they're determined to, but look at the lack of explosives-related attacks we have. That's either because guns are easier to obtain, or because we do a good job prohibiting access to explosives. Yes, they still happen on occasion, but it's about limiting the opportunities.

I'm not going to disagree with what you said above, because that actually makes sense. But, how you assume the threat of the people with guns will be lowered. The people with guns will be able to cause even more damage.

As a side note, to what extent do you believe guns should be illegal? Should cops have them, or only when on duty? I just want to know so I can better understand your stance.

 

[revolvingscott]

I believe only special troops of police should have a gun. Like it is here in the UK

 

[Phoenicks]

No offense, but from what I've heard recently about the UK in the news, I don't think emulating you guys would be the best path to take. Besides, the only way to get rid of gun rights would be to amend the constitution. :ksmile: