Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?

[APTYP]

1. If you make bullets expensive, only rich people like Chris Rock would own firearms.

2. Background checks alarm gun dealers about buyer's criminal history. Last time I heard it only takes about half an hour and can be done through a computer.

3. Vigilantees are constitutionally protected militia.

 

[Jebus]

I was thinking more along the lines of the discussion which seems to be robbing stores, killing spouses and being a mass-murderer. People would choose the right tool for the job. And again, if everyone was armed it wouldn't happen.?

Still, there is a giant difference between guns and knives, even if it is but a psychological one.I personallly don't think it would be as easy to rob a liquor store, for example, with a knife. And, IMHO, it's way 'easier' to squeeze a trigger then to actually cut someone's throat, psychologically.

And about mass-murderers: that isn't an argument. They would kill people with a spoon, if they had to. That's why they're considered crazy.

Yeh. So are soldiers. You want a RPG-7 now?

Not really, as I wouldn't know how too operate one. There's also a difference between soldiers and the police.

According to your arugument, police are just humans too. So are soldiers. If the training, background-checks and psychological tests a police officer recieves before getting his hands on a gun don't matter (according to you), then why would they matter with soldiers?

Either way, isn't it better if they didn't have legal access to a gun in the first place?

Isn't there already laws in place that don't let a person with a criminal record not to legally own a firearm? I don't see why a law-abiding citizen should be restricted from owning a gun while some scum can just pick up a handgun and not worry about anything..

Eh... to quote you:

I think everyone should have a gun. It's a pity in England you can't get any gun unless you have a bunch of dumb reasons.

Anyway, citizens enforcing the law is a bad idea. It always is. And 'balance of terror' is too. It's not because every goddamn person on the streets will have a gun, some desperate junkie won't rob a store. Things will just get more messy.

And banks got robbed in the Wild West too, and everybody owned a gun back then.

I think the bible has probably caused more deaths intentionally over a few centuries than a couple of rednecks who own guns

The bible is a MOTIVATION to kill somebody. Guns are MEANS by which to kill somebody. I haven't heard any cases yet in which victims were beaten to death by a bible.

 

[megatron]

And about mass-murderers: that isn't an argument. They would kill people with a spoon, if they had to. That's why they're considered crazy.

Mass murderers usually stick too a single device and don't just kill people for the hell of it, there's always some reason. Also crazy is now just a term psychiatrists use for criminals too get out of prison?

According to your arugument, police are just humans too. So are soldiers. If the training, background-checks and psychological tests a police officer recieves before getting his hands on a gun don't matter (according to you), then why would they matter with soldiers?

Because soldiers are usually kept, along with there guns, away from areas with a lot of civilians. Meanwhile a policeman just lives at home and walks around with a gun. The training is also a lot different, I think it's an insult too some people in the army that they get similair training too the police.

Anyway, citizens enforcing the law is a bad idea. It always is. And 'balance of terror' is too. It's not because every goddamn person on the streets will have a gun, some desperate junkie won't rob a store. Things will just get more messy.

Things are messy. I don't see how speeding up things then having a very fair system would be bad. If everyone had a gun it'd be equal instead of criminals being in power because they own guns and people they usually use them against don't. Would you fuck with someone who was armed?

And banks got robbed in the Wild West too, and everybody owned a gun back then.

So? The world now is a different world from then. There's more people, better weapons and robbing a bank is dumb.

The bible is a MOTIVATION to kill somebody. Guns are MEANS by which to kill somebody. I haven't heard any cases yet in which victims were beaten to death by a bible.

True, but since the bible has been the motivation for millions of murders isn't that equally as bad as just carrying it out?

Guns everywhere else also don't kill that many. Does that mean we should prevent a majority of public from having this other stuff because it kills more?

Also its fine stopping normal people from having stuff with a bunch of paper-work and crap, but criminals don't really care about laws either? It's a little similair too the prohibition in the 20s and the rise of organized crime.

 

[Sander]

Ugh, megatron, you keep bringing up the same flwaed arguments:

A) The similarity between the prohibition and guns is actually not there. They, in fact, have extremely little in common. For one, liquor isn't a murder weapon. Two, the illegal trade in guns isn't actually concerning normal citizens, completely different from the prohibition as well. Guns are also not really a major player in a criminal's wealth.

B) The most troublesome thing with everyone having a gun is accidents, they happen a lot. Wich is why there should not just be background checks, but also a gun license, and to obtain that license, you need to learn how to handle them.

C) The second most troublesome thing about guns is people grabbing them to kill. A lot of murders happen with people you know, and not crazy psycho-bastards. If those people can't get guns that easily, then the murders would be a lot harder to commit.

D) Sure, if everyone had a gun, your theory MIGHT work. Several problems, though:
1) A lot of people wouldn't carry a gun, thus making it a bad deterrent.
2) When you're an assailant, you ALWAYS have the advantage. YOu can walk up to someone with a gun ready, while the other person needs to go grab it. Thus, it isn't as good for defense.
3) If you make guns illegal, criminals will have a harder time getting them. How hard is it to understand that?

 

[Paladin Solo]

Criminals most likely won't be affected by making guns illegal, since they already have them if they need one! There are enough guns out there to make sure that making guns illegal doesn't make a difference. How hard is it to understand that? The black market, the mafia, gangs, and military/police people can get guns on the street easier than anyone else. Those are the people who won't be affected by guns being illegal. It's the regular, innocent, unprotected, civilians that will get affected. Why make it worse for us? Sander, you don't condone violence, neither do I unless it's necessary. And when someone breaks into my home, or tries to harm me or my family, I would really like a gun at my home to be able to get.

Plus, it's not like the person just magically appears and holds you up with a gun pointed at you. You can have enough time to grab your weapon half of the time. Like I said Sander, even if they couldn't get their hands on guns legally, there are many other methods and many other weapons to use.

 

[Sander]

Yes there are. But making guns easily available doesn't need to actually help. There are no indications that it will help.

But, honestly, to back any claims from either side up, you need hard evidence in the form of good, accepted and unqestionable surveys. But we don't have them.

 

[Paladin Solo]

It's not easily available LEGALLY yet people can still get easily. See my point? There are waiting periods, permits, taxes, some guns are already banned in some places, licenses. See?

 

[Sander]

I'm not stupid, Paladin Solo, I can see what you're getting at, and I've heard millions of times before. Check the link to the previous gun thread and read some of it, and you'll see every argument passing along. The entire problem is that every argument on every side has a counter-argument from the other side, and that none of the arguments can actually be proven AT ALL. There are no reliable accepted inquiries, and a lot of inquiries contradict eachother.
If there were evidence, it'd be a lot easier to say how it really is, instead of just making assumptions.

 

[megatron]

What would happen if you were attacked by someone with a gun? What if someone had broken into your home? Ring the police mabye?

I also don't really care about surveys. If whatever the surveryor set out to do doesn't reflect on what results he wanted, chances are he wouldn't publish them.

 

[Sander]

What would happen if you were attacked by someone with a gun?

YOu'd be fucked. If someone is pointing a gun at you, there is no way you can be faster than him if you don't have your gun pointed at him already.

What if someone had broken into your home? Ring the police mabye?

Exactly! YOu don't just go around shooting people. Do you really want to kill someone because they broke into your house?
What's more, accidents happen to easily here. Remember that event welsh(IIRC) told about, that some guy shot his daughter who came in late because he thought she was a burglar?

 

[Murdoch]

What would happen if you were attacked by someone with a gun? What if someone had broken into your home? Ring the police mabye?

I also don't really care about surveys. If whatever the surveryor set out to do doesn't reflect on what results he wanted, chances are he wouldn't publish them.

This is the exact reason why the public doesn't trust science. You think that they wouldn't publish it? Fuck that, any scientist worth their degree would be dying to publish it. Most invention and innovation comes from proving assumptions wrong. By proving your own assumptions wrong you are doing just that. The only thing you have to concern yourself with is where are the scientists getting their money from? If its from the NRA, or the anti-gun groups, then you have to wonder.

And also, most people working n my lab are of the female persuasion.

 

[Milkman]

What if someone had broken into your home? Ring the police mabye?

Exactly! YOu don't just go around shooting people. Do you really want to kill someone because they broke into your house?
What's more, accidents happen to easily here.

Or you phone the cops, then aim your gun at the criminal and tell him to lie down until the police arrive. Of course, if the criminal attacks you or pulls a gun, shoot him. Contrary to what some may believe (And I'm not attempting to be condescending here) the police are relatively ineffective at preventing crimes, unless they are at the scene of it as it occurs. Generally, it's up to the citizen to defend himself.

Supposing that the man was a mere burglar and intended you no physical harm, forcing him to the ground via firearm would be conducive to not getting robbed. Unless he attacks you, there's no harm done to anybody, aside from possible speculation as to the sexual well-being of the criminal when he's serving his ten years in prison.

YOu'd be fucked. If someone is pointing a gun at you, there is no way you can be faster than him if you don't have your gun pointed at him already.

If they were attacking you to steal your money, then correct, you're fucked. You give him your wallet, then phone the police and report the theft. With or without firearm, that's the logical thing to do. Cash, credit cards, ID, etc, are not worth dying over, obviously.

If they were attacking you for the purpose of murdering you, then you're fucked either way. In that case, the small chance, should it exist at all, of shooting him before he shoots you is more desirable than simply getting murdered.

Remember that event welsh(IIRC) told about, that some guy shot his daughter who came in late because he thought she was a burglar?

That illustrates my point. If instead of simply opening fire, he pointed the gun on her (preferrably with an attached flashlight, since if you have an accessible gun, you're expecting night incursions) and positively identified her as his daughter, odds are she would not have been shot.

The only thing you have to concern yourself with is where are the scientists getting their money from? If its from the NRA, or the anti-gun groups, then you have to wonder.

Indeed. Gun control is another issue over which politics obscures the facts. There are few people who care enough about the issue to donate lots of money towards research, and don't have an opinion about it.

 

[Sander]

That's all true Milkman, though walking around with a gun is still not really useful, but that should be a man's(or woman's) own choice, if the law allows it. But, as I've said again and again, we need decent facts to support either claim. Actually making all this arguing completely worthless. It'll all go into a vicious cycle soon and become flamebait and general nastiness anyway.

 

[APTYP]

Exactly! YOu don't just go around shooting people. Do you really want to kill someone because they broke into your house?

What's wrong with that? It's not like good people break into other people's houses these days.

 

[megatron]

That's all true Milkman, though walking around with a gun is still not really useful

But it's more useful too walk around with a gun than without. Better to be safe than sorry or something.

But, as I've said again and again, we need decent facts to support either claim.

I don't see why we need a bunch of figures that don't have any impact on the argument anyway? It's basically a question of common sense. If someone came into my home and was fucking with my shit or some wannabe gangsters were threatening me I shouldn't have to wait for the police to clean up, I should be able to defend myself and use appropriate violence. I wouldn't want a gun if I didn't think they could have a gun, but since they could I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

mebbe

They should at least have a more competent police force or allow citizens a little more ability too legally defend themselves. It doesn't matter if there's a few accidents, prevention of actual violence intended towards you would solve a majority of the actual deaths involved in criminal activity. For instance, your example of of the guy shooting his daughter could be balanced out by some wannabe columbine assholes who were stopped because of armed teachers.

 

[APTYP]

Sound familiar, welsh?

 

[megatron]

3) If you make guns illegal, criminals will have a harder time getting them. How hard is it to understand that?

In the UK, as it's been mentioned before, it's ridiculously hard too legally own a gun. Gun-crime has shot up (no pun intended) over the last few years. Couldn't find exact figures but it seems people are getting killed every week by guns.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Sound familiar, welsh?

I can see where this is going... If this is going to turn into a series of personal insults or a blind and otherwise pointless struggle over this topic I WILL PERSONALLY ASK WELSH TO VAT THIS SHIT! Play nice or stay off the playground.

 

[APTYP]

No, what I meant was that this is becoming a war of opinions on what is the Right Thing To Do, which is fundamentally different from two sides who have the same opinion but different ideas on how to accomplish it.

The problem is that every side will eventually declare opponent's main arguments as irrelevant. With time people will get frustrated that opponent doesn't 'listen' to them, so remarks will start flying. That's what every debate on fundamental topics ends up being, so if it were for me I'd start devoicing people for bringing up things like guns or religion.

 

[Sander]

What's wrong with that? It's not like good people break into other people's houses these days.

It's not like vigilante justice is good, you know. And I don't think shooting people is a really decent punishment for burglary either.

And the reason why we need actual evidence, is because you can't base reasoning on nothing. It's just stupid to do so. YOu may think that we all need guns for protection, and I think we don't. That's a difference of opinion, and without evidence, we can't know what the right opinion is, and a government can't base laws on simple opinions without any evidence. All this is becoming is a "I think this" and "I think that" argument, no evidence, and thus it's just a "I am right, now shut up" thing.