pokeslob
Χριστιανός
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 20
unless you have a lisence to carry a concealed weapon... which is a pain in the ass to get I believe.
oh it is... -.-
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
unless you have a lisence to carry a concealed weapon... which is a pain in the ass to get I believe.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
shining-Celebi said: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.
I believe in responsible gun use becuase after all, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
Define "common use."
Sure, it makes sense, but how about limiting guns in the first place so we cut down on crimes of convenience/passion?
Phoenicks said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But why are guns protected by that? Why not draw the line at crossbows? Bows and arrows? Spears? Uzis? C4? Seems a tad arbitrary.
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.
So we should keep guns legal so we can forget them in our cars and people will die anyway?
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.
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.
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.