115 replies to this topic

[Phil]

I'm curious as to how you want to "defend" yourself like that with a gun. Do guns deflect bullets? Do they heal wounds or revive people? I guess not.
The criminals with guns will be quicker than you anyway. Only that if they know they're more likely to be shot at, they will in turn shoot at you more quickly. Handing out guns like candy really doesn't make anything safer for John Smith, it just makes the whole society quicker in actually pulling the trigger.

And don't tell me you'd only give guns to the good guys. Even now when guns are illegal, criminals can all get hold of them, so when they're legal it'll be even easier for them. Most likely you would even distribute the guns to all those crazy school shooters and whatnot, most of them appear as the nice boy next door until they go totally mad.

Really, having all kinds of people carry guns doesn't do anything other than create a false sense of security. Really, I'd rather get a gun pointed at me by someone who knows he's got nothing to fear and thus robs me without even considering to shoot than having a gun pointed at me by someone who is afraid of being shot himself and is more likely to pull the trigger because he's so nervous.

[Alias]

And I put it to you, Banshee, how will banning guns stop gun crime? It hasn't in the UK. Liverpool is a prime example. A couple people every week get shot in Liverpool, that's before you even look at the rest of the country. And guns are illegal here. The point is, if you make something illegal, you don't make it any less accessible. People who want a gun will find ways and means to get one. Same as marijuana. Same as cocaine. Same as heroin. I presume the situation on that score is not too dissimilar in Brazil, either.

The point isn't if it stops it, it's if it reduces it, and it WILL reduce it. Countries with stricter gun laws DO have less shootings by percentage of murders.

[duke_Qa]

Also remember, when there is less guns around, criminals are less likely to run around with guns. two examples why:

One, they do not need to worry about being shot as much as before, so they can take the risk of running around doing crimes with less lethal weapons. lower risk of death to themselves and indirectly to their victims.

Two, once the number of gun-crimes are reduced because there are fewer guns around, police will have the opportunity to really hunt down and punish those that actually go to the step of using a gun. Think nuclear proliferation, only smaller scale. this causes a positive spiral, where those who use guns more often gets caught than those that doesn't. basic Darwinism, survival of the fittest. only difference is that the top of the food-chain comes after you if you make gun-noises.

[Tom]

We should all be paranoid and ban crime, that will stop crime!

When there is a government monopoly on guns, you usually get government tyranny, whether the population realise it or not. Banning guns doesn't stop them falling into the hands of people capable of committing school shootings.

Invision this. If a criminal pulls out a gun in a shop. What would happen if the shop keeper has a gun, the shop keepers assistant and the customers. 1 criminal vs 10 gun holders. Would be interesting to see if it would work out that like.

[Phil]

I predict there would be at least one dead person, either because the criminal is shot or because the criminal shoots the others first. Either way it's a pretty bad situation.

[Banshee]

I think he was generalising, Banshee.

It was totally wrong generalization. I do not support these things, neither the govern of my country.

And I put it to you, Banshee, how will banning guns stop gun crime? It hasn't in the UK. Liverpool is a prime example. A couple people every week get shot in Liverpool, that's before you even look at the rest of the country. And guns are illegal here. The point is, if you make something illegal, you don't make it any less accessible. People who want a gun will find ways and means to get one. Same as marijuana. Same as cocaine. Same as heroin. I presume the situation on that score is not too dissimilar in Brazil, either.

There is no solution to stop crimes. There are solutions to reduce crimes and banning guns is one of them. Of course, while guns exist in a place, there will be ways to get them. The organized crime here steal them from the army and the police or buy them from foreign countries (specially Colombia).

[some_weirdGuy]

my god, get it through your heads, more guns=bad, less guns=good

you are saying, 'but criminals will still get guns'
well, if guns are banned then instead of 100% of criminals having, guns, only the.. what, 10%? would be able to get them...

[Ash]

And 0% of the population able to defend themselves or at least to respond in kind. Defending oneself doesn't just refer to a bulletproof shield. It also refers to the ability to deter or repel attackers. Let me give you an example.

If someone gives you a sharp left hook to the face, you are, unless he's eight foot tall and you're a midget, or you're unconscious, able to try and give one back, because you're evenly armed.

But if someone pulls a gun on you, and you don't have one, you're fucked. If someone comes up to you brandishing a knife or even a gun, the "you bet on the wrong pony" situation can come into play if you have a gun. I believe everyone should have the right to be able to feel as if they are able to protect themselves.

In the ideal fantasy world, yes, less guns is good. But why should I not be allowed one when the people who mean me harm can have them whether they're allowed them or not? I should certainly be permitted to possess a gun to protect my home and family from trespass. To be honest, I don't care about the punishment I would receive, anyone who breaks into my house WILL be attacked violently, to protect my property, myself and anyone who happens to inhabit the house as well. If I had a gun, I would be further empowered to protect those things. And I personally don't see why I am not allowed to be armed to the same or similar degree as those who are likely to try and harm me.

[Casen]

http://digg.com/poli...nd_we_ll_secede

Montana is threatening to secede if the US Government outlaws guns...

Thought this would be interesting for this thread.

[jnengland77]

Not surprised. Montana is one of those rebellious states. I think they voted against going into both World Wars, and did some other against-the-wall voting. Plus, there are many hunters there. I went to Montana not too long ago (about a year). The mountains and wilderness are beautiful, I can see why they like to hunt. To be outdoors.

~jnengland77

[Banshee]

To repel an attacker doesn't necessarily mean to kill the attacker. You can stop the attacker and get him arrested. In this case, guns are not necessarily, because they were designed to kill, not to stop people. In a place with no guns, pepper sprays would do a great job on repelling many attackers without necessarily spreading more violence.

[duke_Qa]

But if someone pulls a gun on you, and you don't have one, you're fucked. If someone comes up to you brandishing a knife or even a gun, the "you bet on the wrong pony" situation can come into play if you have a gun. I believe everyone should have the right to be able to feel as if they are able to protect themselves.

you are pretty fucked anyway if someone who actually is willing to bring a gun into a fight draws it before you. What are you going to do, go for your own six-shooter? your brain is splattered out on the wall about the same time as your hand touches your gun. I think the "we want guns to protect ourselves" psychology is based on Rambo movies. Where people think that if they have to shoot someone, its like shooting tin-cans on the fence in the backyard.

I can tell you, i feel so much safer in this country because of the strict rules on gun control, than I will ever feel in the states. "Freedom" to have a gun is not a freedom, it's a shadow of fear which creeps into the mind of both victim and criminal. "what if someone breaks into my house with a gun and shoots me", "what if someone in that house has a gun and shoots me?". they are both based on the same psychology, and they both come from the same cause; a massive surplus of weaponry.


It's like decorating your garden with gnomes and land-mines. don't get surprised if you get executed for killing the neighbors football-playing son.



like Banshee says, pepper-spray and tazers would be more than enough. Why would you want a lethal weapon to protect yourself against another lethal weapon, if you can use something which is much less harmful and probably just as neutralizing? if i was a criminal guy with a gun i don't think i would have shot someone i know has a tazer or pepper-spray compared to someone who has a real gun.

[Paladin58]

my god, get it through your heads, more guns=bad, less guns=good

you are saying, 'but criminals will still get guns'
well, if guns are banned then instead of 100% of criminals having, guns, only the.. what, 10%? would be able to get them...

Actually, then that 100% that use them will keep using them, and then crime rates go up when some of those folks get picked up for weapon possession, making people paranoid that their neighbor could have a bloodthirsty Postal side to them, so then they lobby for gun ownership to be reinstated. And, the cycle continues...

[Tom]

State regulation on guns = bad. I believe people are responsible enough to be treated as adults. The state does not need to treat us like children. If I want to own a gun for whatever reasons, why should I be stopped. Why does the state have the authority to tell me I can't own a gun. Because they don't trust me? Good I don't want the state to trust me. That will keep them in check.

Personally I know i'm not going to go and massacre anyone. I also realise my neighbour probably has a gun, so why would I want to fuck with him.

Common sense people. More guns does not equal more crime.

[Paladin58]

Well, if that was a jab at my little post, I'm talking about how there will be an endless cycle of legislating gun ownership if they tried to just pull the legality of them now. I'm on the 'Anti-Gun-Outlaw' argument. So, quick, fire on Banshee! <.< >.> [/redirect]

Edited by Nology5890, 21 February 2008 - 11:32 PM.

[some_weirdGuy]

maybe you need an example to help you see why everyone with a gun= bad

everyone doesnt have a gun scenario:

a robber who gets his hand on a gun holds you up for your wallet, before running off with your cash

everyone has a gun scenario:

robber shoots you from behind while your walking down the street(because you have a gun too, and could shoot him), then steals the wallet from your dead body



stop using idiot logic, and think clearly, a robber is 100 times more likely to shoot first and rob later if you can get him

if you cant shoot him, he will just steal your money and run, where he then gets caught by the police later on...

[Tom]

If we are going to pull random scenarios out of our asses for fear mongering purposes then lets do this:

A bank robber runs into a bank and holds everybody up. Beause no one is armed and he is they are forced to comply. The police turn up and the back robber is trapped. Now he is holding everyone hostage in ransom for some demands. Innocent people could get killed if the police make a mistake.

Now lets reverse that. Bank robber runs into a bank. Everybody has a weapon. 1 against 20 people? Who will win?

Just because everybody has a gun, it doesn't mean a shot will be fired. A responsible person knows you can diffuse a situation without even firing a shot.

[CodeCat]

Actually, then that 100% that use them will keep using them, and then crime rates go up when some of those folks get picked up for weapon possession, making people paranoid that their neighbor could have a bloodthirsty Postal side to them, so then they lobby for gun ownership to be reinstated. And, the cycle continues...

Or you could just move out of the USA. Maybe you'll see that things don't have to be like that, then.

[Casen]

Treason.

Regardless, guns here are a cultural pride. That's the pre-conceived reason for this, and that is more important than anything else. So fuck everyone from other countries who has a problem with it. Keep it to yourselves and shutup.

[Banshee]

If we are going to pull random scenarios out of our asses for fear mongering purposes then lets do this:

A bank robber runs into a bank and holds everybody up. Beause no one is armed and he is they are forced to comply. The police turn up and the back robber is trapped. Now he is holding everyone hostage in ransom for some demands. Innocent people could get killed if the police make a mistake.

Now lets reverse that. Bank robber runs into a bank. Everybody has a weapon. 1 against 20 people? Who will win?

Just because everybody has a gun, it doesn't mean a shot will be fired. A responsible person knows you can diffuse a situation without even firing a shot.

If there are no guns, the robber won't be able to rob a bank at all, because he won't have a gun either. It will be like a mission impossible for him to rob a bank with knives.

Also, people rob banks in a group. Never alone.

Edited by Banshee, 22 February 2008 - 04:08 PM.