Gun Control

[Weatherman Kiyoshi]

lololol

guns :D

I remember the last gun thread.
but in this one, I'ma gonna be less of a prick. ^^

You see, making normal people unable to purchase a gun goes against the constitution.
rendering it unconstitutional, and banned from ever having that happen again.

well, atleast in the US.

It's funny how this kind of stuff thats "unconstitutional" killed off the federalists.

...
what?

you don't know what a federalist is?
that proves my point.

---

anyway, before I get hate mail and anti-war nuts up my neck with this and that,
I better rap this up quick:

Guns kill.
There is nothing we can do about that.

People will own guns.
There is nothing we can do about that.

Guns will get into the wrong hands.
There is nothing we can do about that.

so moral of the story?
Live. With. It.

 

[Red1530]

I believe that gun bans actually increase crime. Washington, D.C., for example has one of the highest crime rates and until the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller a ban on the passion of handguns and rifles and shotguns stored disassembled. Recently a homeowner in Tusculum, TN shot a two robbers, killing one and wounding the other. The wounded one is currently in police custody.

 

[Lusankya]

But the psychological benefit is also in the aggressor's mind, if you see what I mean...they usually won't mess with you if you have a weapon. That's kind of the idea.

The problem I have is that if people can't buy guns legally, then the only people getting them will be getting them illegally, which means that they already have a predisposition for crime. So if you have a bunch of criminals still getting guns, and a bunch of citizens not able to buy guns to defend themselves, said criminals would instantly have the upper hand.

And crossbows could still present a problem. They're quiet, first of all, and I don't think they need to be registered, but don't quote me on that. They are inherently bigger than handguns, however, and would thus be harder to conceal.

Txt, while I practically worship you, I'm going to have to disagree here.

I'm fairly sure that there's a law saying that any guns you have for self-defense on your person (so, not hunting) must be concealed while on your person in public, meaning that a criminal won't see the gun. So, let's imagine the following scenario:

A person walks into a dark alley. A criminal jumps out from behind a dumpster and points a gun at him, then demands the person's wallet and valuables. The person pulls out his own gun and points it at the criminal, creating a very volatile standoff. Because neither person can be confident that the other person won't shoot them, even if they both say they're going to, neither person wants to be the person who puts their gun down first. Meaning that chances are, someone's going to get shot.

Now take this same situation, but replace the guns, with, oh say, knives. In knife fights you can run away much more easily than in a gunfight, and knife fights longer, meaning you have more time to call for help and such. By decreasing the deadliness and speed of the weapons being used, you drastically decrease the chances of people getting hurt, and how badly they'll be hurt.

This of course changes when guns can be obtained by one side but not the other. However, that's an issue with enforcing the ban on guns. Given how many guns there are in the US, it will take a long time to really get rid of all the guns, but a no-gun society is much safer than a gunned one. Basically what I'm saying here is: If guns are banned, then the government and law enforcement should be really stepping up their actions to prevent guns from being obtained illegally.

Oh, and lastly, crossbows and normal bows aren't nearly as effective weapons for criminals because they take skill and strength to use, and are much harder to aim.

 

[supertails]

I agree with you there and also a bow can't fit though a car window. Actually a lot of laws state that you have to show a gun on you at all times. It's a lot harder to get a pistol then a rifle. I think it's because if people can see it, they can run and hide.

 

[Gunn]

So, saying we should have guns to defend ourselves from criminals isn't actually a logical argument.

What? It's perfectly logical. All the time people in the US defend themselves with a gun against criminals and most of them claim that they are very certain the successful gun defense saved their lives; even in most of these gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first. That proves guns are well-suited for self defense. Firearms are used more often to save lives than to take them. 60 more times to be exact.

So taking that to an extent, you are far more likely to survive a violent assault with a gun while no injury or deaths occur at the same time to anyone. If you were to use some sort of non-violent resistance, you are 45% more likely to be injured as opposed to the 6% of injury that occurred in using a gun to defend yourself.

 

[Midnight Beat]

Guns are silly and can turn against you, if you really want to protect yourself from a home invader- learn martial arts/self defense.

....I can't believe no one has quoted this yet. Now, I'm all for martial arts, in fact, I'm a blackbelt. But the matter of the fact is if someone with gun breaks into my house and is farther than five feet from me, I'm screwed. Martial arts have their limitation.

 

[txteclipse]

Txt, while I practically worship you, I'm going to have to disagree here.

Good lord I like these forums. I was on another one for a few days and I literally left because people couldn't hold a debate without starting to flame each other.

That said, it's completely fine. I respect your opinion and your arguments.

 

[supertails]

....I can't believe no one has quoted this yet. Now, I'm all for martial arts, in fact, I'm a blackbelt. But the matter of the fact is if someone with gun breaks into my house and is farther than five feet from me, I'm screwed. Martial arts have their limitation.

If you were wearing armor then you wouldn't be.

 

[Lusankya]

No one wears full battle armor 24/7.

What? It's perfectly logical. All the time people in the US defend themselves with a gun against criminals and most of them claim that they are very certain the successful gun defense saved their lives; even in most of these gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first. That proves guns are well-suited for self defense. Firearms are used more often to save lives than to take them. 60 more times to be exact.

So taking that to an extent, you are far more likely to survive a violent assault with a gun while no injury or deaths occur at the same time to anyone. If you were to use some sort of non-violent resistance, you are 45% more likely to be injured as opposed to the 6% of injury that occurred in using a gun to defend yourself.

While you do make a point, the number of people who die of criminal activity in a country without any guns is far lower than a country with guns, that's a numerical fact. If both sides have guns, then it's far more likely for a person to die than if neither do. You can outrun a person with a knife; you can't outrun a bullet.

 

[supertails]

I can agree with you on both of those.

 

[Gunn]

... the number of people who die of criminal activity in a country without any guns is far lower than a country with guns, that's a numerical fact.

You sure about that? Lets take a look at the violent crime activity in the UK. The United Kingdom's ban on handguns was enacted after the Dublane Massacre. This banning has actually risen the rate of crime, especially violent crime, in a mere two years after it was enacted. What's ironic about it is that the use of firearms in crime has doubled in the very same decade handguns were banned. Even this 2001 article claims that a new study suggested that the use of handguns in crimes have went up.

You know what else went up too? Street robberies, murder, and rape. Between 1997 and 1999 there were 429 murders in London. That is the highest two year figure in a decade with nearly two-third of those deaths involving firearms while the handgun ban is still in affect. In 1999-2000, the handgun homicides have reached its all time high in England and Wales, with more than 3,000 crimes committed including cases of attempted murder, robberies, and burglary. These rises have occurred nearly after the handgun banishment, which is clearly not doing anything to lower crime rates or doing anything for safety.

 

[Lusankya]

Well let's look at another statistic as of 2000: France, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, has a murder rate of 0.0173272 per 1,000 people. The United States, on the other hand, has 0.042802 murders per 1,000 people, about 3 times as many. Even in the UK, they have about 0.0140633 per 1,000 people, still much lower than even France's. In fact, nearly every European country (as well as Canada) has a lower murder rate than the United States's, who has some of the loosest gun control laws of any developed nation.

 

[supertails]

Even if banning guns made the crime rate higher it wouldn't be higher for long. You have to destroy before you can build. You have to remove stuff from your room before you can clean it and you have to destroy a building before you can build from it. When you're investing you have to spend money to make money. It's all the same pretty much.

 

[Black_Wolf]

Now, I keep reading all these thing about crime. Yes, it's true that guns contribute to crime, but what most people should understand is that most gun owners have respect for their firearms.

I'm an NRA member and former U.S. Marine, so I'm against gun control. Why? That is the flaw of gun control...it limits and bans law abiding citizens from getting or keeping legal firearms. Criminals do not care about the law. Why should I give up my weapons when the ones more likely to cause harm won't?

Though, I don't really see an issue with a more thorough background checks or reasonable waiting periods (if your not a criminal you have nothing to worry about), I would actually like to see some kind of control on 2nd had gun sales- Once you sell a weapon to someone , in a way you are still responsible for where it ends up- I would rather destroy my own firearm than have it used in a crime-

And these "Accidents" that occur with guns aren't accidents, if not so much having to do with the irresponsibility and stupidity of the gun owner. These can easily be avoided with locks and a gun-safe.

Guns are silly and can turn against you, if you really want to protect yourself from a home invader- learn martial arts/self defense.

Martial arts as a whole is actually pretty useless as protection. That, and the fact that even I wouldn't try hand to hand combat on someone who I didn't have intentions on ending.

 

[Lusankya]

Well, let me clarify my position here a little: I believe that if, in a hypothetical universe, it were possible to completely eradicate guns from the civilian markets, either legally or illegally, the world would be a much better place. But, I am against gun control because I don't think that from a practical standpoint, it is possible to actually do so, especially in the US, where it would probably take generations to actually create a gun-free or nearly gun-free society. They're just too common, and it's too difficult to enforce the laws.

 

[supertails]

FDR was able to take most of our gold so our guns will be no problem.

 

[Kenshin5]

If you were wearing armor then you wouldn't be.

Why would you being wearing armor in your house?

 

[supertails]

You suit up and fight evil.

 

[Kenshin5]

So when you get dressed in the morning or whenever you get dressed you suit up in your body armor?

 

[supertails]

I don't even own a pair. They cost tons.