Gun Control GOOD or bad?

[DeletedUser2765]

[ke][2:02:36 PM] Cat Like Thief: i mean... why wud u sell a device whos purpose is solely to kill... to the public
[2:02:48 PM] Kriegselend: so they can defend themselves
[2:02:52 PM] Kriegselend: against people who wish to kill?
[2:02:55 PM] Cat Like Thief: against people with guns?
[2:03:00 PM] Kriegselend: against people with anything
[2:03:33 PM] Cat Like Thief: arent people with guns like 80% more likely to kill themselves or a family member?
[2:05:34 PM | Edited 2:05:45 PM] Kriegselend: if someone wants to kill themself
[2:05:42 PM] Kriegselend: they're going to kill themself
[2:05:47 PM] Cat Like Thief: thats the main problem, its too fast, if u want to kill urself u reach for a gun, BAM your dead... if u use a knife on the other hand, u have time to change ur mind and call for an ambulance
[2:05:49 PM] Kriegselend: with or without a gun
[2:06:19 PM] Cat Like Thief: guess it depends on where u stab urself
[2:07:56 PM] Kriegselend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
[2:07:59 PM] Kriegselend: watch that
[2:10:20 PM] Kriegselend: especially at 2:15 onwards
[2:10:30 PM] Cat Like Thief: just watching now
[2:14:41 PM] Cat Like Thief: ok fair enough....
[2:14:45 PM] Cat Like Thief: now check this out
[2:14:49 PM] Cat Like Thief: Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population...
[2:14:59 PM] Cat Like Thief: Central America 29.3
[2:15:05 PM] Cat Like Thief: West and Central Europe 1.5
[2:15:14 PM] Cat Like Thief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
[2:16:00 PM] LastApparatus: Public having guns = good thing
[2:16:12 PM] LastApparatus: When the public has guns, people are less likely to steal from them
[2:16:27 PM] LastApparatus: Who the heck tries to rob someone thinking "this person has a gun?"
[2:16:36 PM] Cat Like Thief: i wud rather have a high crime rate than a high homicide rate
[2:16:41 PM] LastApparatus: There are criminals either way --- And criminals will get guns either way
[2:17:17 PM] LastApparatus: All that not selling guns to the public does is let the criminals illegally get guns to shoot people with, without letting the public get them to defend themselves
[2:17:35 PM] Kriegselend: it isn't the same in the US as it is in GB
[2:17:40 PM] Kriegselend: in the US we have such a large black market for guns
[2:17:46 PM] Kriegselend: that to ban control for us
[2:17:58 PM] Kriegselend: would be to literally disarm us and put us at the mercy of criminals
[2:18:04 PM] LastApparatus: There isn't a big black market in GB?
[2:18:05 PM] LastApparatus: LastApparatus moves
[2:18:14 PM] Kriegselend: In GB, you guys don't have much, if any black market for guns.
[2:18:51 PM] Cat Like Thief: yes and ur absolutely right, crime would rise! definitely... but murder rate wud drop... and wud u rather have ur house burgled or be dead...
[2:19:11 PM] LastApparatus: I'm positive, without a doubt, that, as far as the USA goes, whatever laws or bans are put in place, and whatever restrictions are put in place to keep guns out of the publics hands, I could get a gun, easily.
[2:19:16 PM] Kriegselend: I would rather have the option to defend myself
[2:19:22 PM] Kriegselend: then to be at the mercy of a crimina
[2:19:25 PM] Kriegselend: criminal*
[2:19:33 PM] Kriegselend: And murder rates would not go down
[2:19:40 PM] Kriegselend: because criminals would still have guns
[2:19:51 PM] Cat Like Thief: u cant carry a gun with u everywhere, at all times, the one time u forget to bring it with u, cud be the one time u get one pointed in ur face
[2:20:01 PM] Kriegselend: ok whats your point?
[2:20:04 PM] Kriegselend: the one puting it in my face
[2:20:07 PM] Kriegselend: would be a criminal
[2:20:09 PM] Kriegselend: who had a gun anyway
[2:20:17 PM] Cat Like Thief: not if guns were banned he wudnt
[2:20:23 PM] Kriegselend: omg
[2:20:31 PM] Kriegselend: in the US we have such a large black market for guns
that to ban control for us
would be to literally disarm us and put us at the mercy of criminals
[2:20:45 PM | Edited 2:20:53 PM] Cat Like Thief: well u shudnt of let it get so bad then shud u
[2:21:16 PM] LastApparatus: If the person with the gun is the type to pull it out with intention to harm another, not in defense, then he is the kind of person who would have a gun with or without the law.
[2:21:25 PM | Edited 2:21:31 PM] Kriegselend: Well honestly I'm glad we let it "get so bad" because if my government ever gets out of control, I can rise up and put it back in its place.
[2:21:49 PM] Kriegselend: Tell me, how will you revolt against your government? Sticks and stones?
[2:22:03 PM] Cat Like Thief: why wud i need to revolt against my government?
[2:22:12 PM] Kriegselend: Because governments get corrupt.
[2:22:27 PM] Kriegselend: All governments become corrupt.
[2:22:37 PM] Cat Like Thief: so the government is corrupt, so we shud go shoot them all?
[2:22:41 PM] LastApparatus: Such is the basis of our (KV and I's at least) government
[2:22:54 PM] Kriegselend: so the government is corrupt, so we shud go shoot them all?You take them over.
[2:23:03 PM] Cat Like Thief: a military coo?
[2:23:04 PM] Kriegselend: You can put them in prison for instance
[2:23:16 PM] Kriegselend: The military is under control of the government.
[2:23:29 PM] Cat Like Thief: :S
[2:23:40 PM] Cat Like Thief: so let me get this straight..
[2:23:58 PM] Kriegselend: LA and I support guns, because we want to defend ourselves from criminals and the government.

Discuss[/ke]

 

[DeletedUser1189]

Being from the UK myself where we have very strict gun control I am all in favour of it. I was pretty horrified actually to read in the newspapers that armed police patrols would actually be out and about patrolling some of the worst parts of our capitol. Luckily I live miles away from it in the north east. But its a worrying state of affairs when the police move from having armed response units which are called in specifically when a gun crime is in progress to them actually just being out on patrol armed.

I feel a lot safer knowing that we havent managed to normalise the fact that people can own a gun and could even be carrying it with them while they pop down to the shops. Blink of an eye someone could shoot for no other reason than they were carrying a gun and I wasnt. Wrong place wrong time, and so on and so on with reasons I might be shot, for no other reason than minding my own buisness.

People dont need to carry guns. Or knives for that matter. The stricter we enforce these rules and punish those who do the better and safer I will feel. Theres no excuse or need to own a gun, not while there is strict gun control and this is enforced.

 

[DeletedUser]

[la]

...armed response units which are called in specifically when a gun crime is in progress...

So despite the gun laws, there are people with guns?

...Blink of an eye someone could shoot for no other reason than they were carrying a gun and I wasnt. Wrong place wrong time, and so on and so on with reasons I might be shot, for no other reason than minding my own buisness.

But you also suggest that even with the laws in place, this won't happen. Not only is it still possible that someone will have a gun despite the laws (as the above statement suggests) but also, if you run into someone with a gun, they got it illegally, and as such, are much more likely to have it for destructive reasons, not self-defense... Oh, and in the above quote, you state you're being shot because someone has a gun and you don't, hence, having a gun would have saved your life...

While I can't comment on the state of criminals illegally carrying guns in the UK, in the USA, its all too common.[/la]

 

[DeletedUser2765]

[ke]First I suggest you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Secondly, there is one more option to be able to carry guns. What if your government becomes corrupt? How will you over throw it in order to install a new government? If your government declares martial law and has police carrying guns. How do you stand up to them? You quite simply can't. You are at the mercy of the government.[/ke]

 

[DeletedUser]

[la]Without trying to back up Kriegselend and make this thread too one sided, I would like to add to what he has said about government by quoting an old U.S. document.

...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

[/la]

 

[DeletedUser2765]

[ke]To further back-up LA's point, you can't institute a new government without guns. Oh and LA, don't worry about it being to one-sided, this is the >UK< servers after all. :icon_wink:[/ke]

 

[DeletedUser]

Being from the UK myself where we have very strict gun control I am all in favour of it. I was pretty horrified actually to read in the newspapers that armed police patrols would actually be out and about patrolling some of the worst parts of our capitol. Luckily I live miles away from it in the north east. But its a worrying state of affairs when the police move from having armed response units which are called in specifically when a gun crime is in progress to them actually just being out on patrol armed.

I feel a lot safer knowing that we havent managed to normalise the fact that people can own a gun and could even be carrying it with them while they pop down to the shops. Blink of an eye someone could shoot for no other reason than they were carrying a gun and I wasnt. Wrong place wrong time, and so on and so on with reasons I might be shot, for no other reason than minding my own buisness.

People dont need to carry guns. Or knives for that matter. The stricter we enforce these rules and punish those who do the better and safer I will feel. Theres no excuse or need to own a gun, not while there is strict gun control and this is enforced.

Being from the UK, and living in London, I would be completely fine with Armed Police Patrols. As long as they receive adequate training and lessons [this includes simulating events and situation testing.] They should also only allow police who have undergone personality and mindset tests, place boundaries on who will be allowed to wield guns ect.
Aside from this, if a criminal wanted to get a gun he/she can most definitely get a gun in UK, black markets for these trades do exist else we wouldn't be having a problem with gun crime and there is no doubt that the UK does suffer from an age of guncrime.

 

[DeletedUser1189]

Very true, if someone really wants to get hold of a gun its probably not going to be that hard for them. Especially with all the gang culture these days and the influx or world wide crime syndicates wanting to get into the UK and stake there claims.

But if we allow ourselves to normalize and adjust to a mind set that people carry guns, theres loads of these people anyway so who cares, we are treading a very dangerous path. To be fair I dont mind the police carrying guns, but they should be the only people with them. As Nindel says, people trained and qualified to carry them and to make the correct judgements to actually fire one if the sitaution demands it.

Letting everyone carry one then things will get out of control. They will no longer be the preserve of gangs and organised crime, which, on a day to day basis provided your generally law abiding, will never come into contact with anyway so no harm no foul. Everyone carrying a gun though. Well, thats just scary.

 

[DeletedUser]

Living in London and young I Know I can get my hands on a gun if I wanted to - but I don't because I know I'm more likely if I go round with a gun to be attack. I don't mind the patrols either, it's safer for me personally as it IS dangerous in some parts. Allthough they should be specially trained in Hand-to-hand aswell as Shooting to be able to muscle of muggers who want the gun.

Letting people have a gun - Stupid idea, just plain dangerous and silly!

"you're being shot because someone has a gun and you don't, hence, having a gun would have saved your life..."

No, you would've ended someone else's life.

 

[DeletedUser]

[clt]Roch just made a good point... Legalising guns is like telling the nation, that its ok to carry a gun, its ok to carry around a device that was built soley to make killing more convienent.

The United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) has one of the lowest levels of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of intentional gun deaths.

Homicides per 100,000 pop
USA 5.9
ENG 1.6

Personally i would rather live in a country with a higher crime rate, than a higher murder rate.[/clt]

 

[DeletedUser]

:icon_biggrin: Right.

You are aware there is no argument that can convince most Europeans to that?

I am for gun control. Allowing weapons that lethal of any kind is something that can push people into violence, and the fact that it can serve to prevent what it causes in the first place is stupid.

The youtube you linked to is uhm... biased. Very biased. What about people who get even more easily robbed as any petty criminal has access to a gun? I am sure there are many cases of that as well. Arguing that those robbed could also carry a gun everywhere with them is a very good start to mass paranoia... especially that the guy robbing you will in most cases have the gun out before you. so maybe we should always carry a loaded gun in our hand? :icon_neutral: with a finger on the trigger just to make sure... :icon_confused:

Next:
It is much easier for forces like police which most states rely on, to inflict justice or at least stop criminals if the likelihood of getting shot at is smaller.

[ke]Secondly, there is one more option to be able to carry guns. What if your government becomes corrupt? How will you over throw it in order to install a new government? If your government declares martial law and has police carrying guns. How do you stand up to them? You quite simply can't. You are at the mercy of the government.[/ke]

KV, this is apparently meant for serious discussion....

Do you even realise what you are talking about?
1) Totalitarian governments rise to power with the support of the people (at first)
2) Any totalitarian government has a loyal army when the support from the population diminishes. Please shoot the tank on the street with your handgun, i am sure they won't mind and shoot you right back.
3) If someone can enforce a martial law there is nothing stopping them from sending police to confiscate all the guns. Without the at least passive support from the army and police you simply can't overthrow a government, you have guns or not.
4) Overthrowing a government by using force is near to guaranteed to cause even more violence and give birth to a new totalitarian regime. a nature of civil war is such that the most radical groups, even if small at the start, emerge victorious. (vide: Russian Civil war, Spanish Civil War, China etc etc).

There is more stuff but i will bring it up later....
SF

 

[DeletedUser1189]

To expand a bit on whats been said and arguments for and against, I've seen a show on TV, looking at the southern american militias, and how groups like these would be on hand to defend america from an invading force with there huge arsenal of machine guns and semi automatic weapons. I just shook my head in disbelief. If anyone was going to invade america in this day and age, they would need to use nukes. Thats gonna make all them flag waving miliatia men and there puny excuses for owning so many guns a bit pointless really.

 

[DeletedUser]

[la]Wrong: If you use nukes, its not invasion, its annihilation. Any intelligent country/government is going to know that nuclear war is the most stupid and pointless move one could make. It will completely destroy your opponent, which is not the point of war, despite that being its outward appearance. The point of war is almost always a bit more political than "lets kill some peeps". In addition to that, you will then have started a chain reaction that would result in all but 5% of the human population dying out.[/la]

 

[DeletedUser1189]

If there is war between two nuclear powers, it would most likely start as a war off as a non nuclear. But if both sides were determined to fight until one or the other gave up, what happens to the country which is backed into the corner. It would be very tempting for them to just last ditch blow everything you got at the enemy. You see the same behavior in tribal wars players sometimes when they just give up as your attacking them, they just randomly send everything they have at you in a suicide.

 

[DeletedUser]

[la]Its ironic, our species is, quite possibly, the first species to have the technology to be able to expand its life, and to expand beyond the planet, and to prevent our own death a la "huge meteor hitting the earth and wiping us all out" style --- yet, we are also quite possibly the first species to be able to have the technology to end all life with very little effort. Don't get me wrong, I love technology, but its a double-edged sword, and is in the hands of the most fickle, illogical, emotionally-driven species on the planet.[/la]

 

[DeletedUser]

KV, this is apparently meant for serious discussion....

Do you even realise what you are talking about?
1) Totalitarian governments rise to power with the support of the people (at first)
2) Any totalitarian government has a loyal army when the support from the population diminishes. Please shoot the tank on the street with your handgun, i am sure they won't mind and shoot you right back.
3) If someone can enforce a martial law there is nothing stopping them from sending police to confiscate all the guns. Without the at least passive support from the army and police you simply can't overthrow a government, you have guns or not.
4) Overthrowing a government by using force is near to guaranteed to cause even more violence and give birth to a new totalitarian regime. a nature of civil war is such that the most radical groups, even if small at the start, emerge victorious. (vide: Russian Civil war, Spanish Civil War, China etc etc).

There is more stuff but i will bring it up later....
SF

Glad that I read the thread before I posted because I was going to touch on a few things that you said. Too bad though this is USA and highly unlikely for it to happen.

[la]Wrong: If you use nukes, its not invasion, its annihilation. Any intelligent country/government is going to know that nuclear war is the most stupid and pointless move one could make. It will completely destroy your opponent, which is not the point of war, despite that being its outward appearance. The point of war is almost always a bit more political than "lets kill some peeps". In addition to that, you will then have started a chain reaction that would result in all but 5% of the human population dying out.[/la]

USA used its nukes against Japan.

_________________
As for me whether i'm pro it or against it. Well, I can't say I've never owned arms or at least so i was told (I think my parents had some when my country was in civil war and i was playing with the bullets :lol: me and my friends would take the gunpowder out and write our names with it then ignite it).

So to get back to it, I'd base my decision on the culture, population and would go case by case. :icon_neutral:

 

[DeletedUser]

Well my dad is actually trained in how to use firearms so it's very safe in our house xD

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Okey, lets look at it in this way, i dont remember the exact counts, but you will see it in the documentary "bowling for colombine" (i dont remember the name of the place, but it was that known massacre in a school by two teenages).

2006/2007 (cant remember year exactly):

Japan: ca 50 persons killed by guns from crime.

Britain: ca 100 persons killed by guns from crime.

Germany: ca 40 persons killed by guns from crime.

China: ca 100 persons killed by guns from crime.

Canada: 2 persons (both on the border to the US, killers from US to) killed by guns from crime.

US: ca 13.000 persons killed by guns from crime.

>.>

Well....and that was murders with guns in 2006 or 2007 people >.<

Whats the difference with us and the rest? You can buy guns in US legaluy and easy. Dont come with the thing that criminals get guns anyway, becouse then i think that the other countries would have a slighty higher numbers here. Thye thing is that in us you can gert guns, and by that more murders. US does have alot more murders in % than other countries in general, i know, but murders with guns are just insane:S

 

[DeletedUser]

Well you need to back them facts up with a source xD

 

[DeletedUser]

Well you need to back them facts up with a source xD

My source was "Bowling for Columbine" (cant be bothered to look after where they got their numbers from tho)...and the date was 2002, sorry >.>

But it got many awards, so the numbers are fact >.>

...my numbers failed misserably. I took the numbers i meant was right from what i can remember of that documentary :|

This is from wiki :3

Spoiler: ...

Statistics

Moore follows up his climate of fear thesis by exploring the popular explanations as to why gun violence is so high in the United States. He examines Marilyn Manson as a cause, but states that Germany listens to more Marilyn Manson and has a greater Gothic population than the United States, with less gun violence (Germany: 381 incidents per year). He examines violent movies but notes that they have the same violent movies in other countries, showing the Matrix with French sub titles (France: 255 incidents per year). He also examines Video Games, but again states that violent video games come from Japan (Japan: 39 incidents per year). Concluding his comparisons with the idea that the United State's violent history is the cause, but negating that with the violent histories of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom (UK: 68 incidents per year). Moore ends his segment with gun related death-per-year statistics of a few major countries.

1. United States - 11,127
2. Germany – 381
3. France – 255
4. Canada – 165
5. United Kingdom – 68
6. Australia – 65
7. Japan – 39

Still....what can i say? >.>

Bad, really bad :|