Guns

[Exorcet]

You're being shot doesn't really make your opinion any more important. We don't even know the situation that led to the injury. [This is all HYPOTHETICAL] You could have been being stupid with someone else (alcohol and guns?), or you could have been attacked, I don't know. Also, your experience could have biased you to one side. If upsets victims were given more say in law, people would probably all be locked in their houses 24 hrs a day. Safer? Maybe, but not for the best.

then ask me again, do I support complete illegality of civilian ownership. Then the answer has to be yes

I know someone who was shot and he doesn't think guns should be illegal.

Also, making guns illegal may not have reduced your chances of being shot. A lot of the previous discussion here debates the impact of total gun control. One side says it will solve everything, the other says it will have a great negative impact. Both sides have provided evidence.

But this is not on topic, but as you are so hell bent on just attacking and trying to pick holes in what I said

That's completely on topic, it's a debate. Would you want everyone to discard their opinions and agree?

 

[FoolKiller]

But this is not on topic, but as you are so hell bent on just attacking and trying to pick holes in what I said, try this.

You need to quickly learn that someone disagreeing with you is not someone attacking you. When I type this the way I say it in my head is in a conversational tone, no different than if I were to have this discussion with a friend. If you enter into an opinion-based discussion, expect to have your opinion challenged by others with differing opinions. It is not an attack.

And I found it to be on topic as you were basically saying you were just giving your opinion, didn't want to participate in the debate itself, and we should just live with it.

If you don't want to be part of the debate that is fine, but don't drop your opinion into a debate and then accuse all who wish to debate you of attacking you.

As I have been shot with a riffle by a civilian I still have the scare from the 5 hour operation to prove it, then ask me again, do I support complete illegality of civilian ownership. Then the answer has to be yes, this guy was caught and went to jail for 5 or 7 years.

I’m sure 90% of you have never been shot, so who gives you the right to talk morality and rights to me.

No one gives me the right to do anything. Rights cannot be given, only taken away. My existence as a human being gives me the right to talk morality and rights. I need no ones permission.

I have been involved in a car accident that was someone else's fault. If I say no one should be allowed to drive cars, does that make my opinion more valid than those who haven't been in the situation?

I have a severe heart condition (among other health issues), does that make my opinion in a nationalized healthcare debate more valid than healthy people?

The answer to both questions is no. It does not make my opinion more valid, as your incident also does not make your opinion more valid. It just gives you a different point of view. Rights and morality are exactly why these things do not make our opinions more valid in our respective situations. You being shot by some guy I do not know does not mean you have the ability to remove the rights of innocent people. It would be immoral to allow someone who is emotionally involved to a degree that they cannot accept a differing opinion without feeling attacked to make decisions that affect the rights of others. It is immoral to allow anyone to remove the rights of others, that do not in turn violate others rights.

Does gun ownership violate anyone's rights? No. does taking the guns away? Yes. Gun ownership does not get people shot, despite your comment:

if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it

Misuse of guns will get people shot, and it does not require legally permitted gun ownership to happen. Using a gun against someone who has not violated your rights is wrong and immoral, as you violate that person's rights. But not everyone will do that, so we should not take guns away from everyone, just as we don't take cars away from everyone because some people speed and drive recklessly.

I'll make sure I keep a spare gun around just to protect you... from those nasty dangerous fluffy animals.

I do not have a gun. I do not intend to own a gun. Unless you count fishing, I have only been hunting once. But if someone attempts to remove my right to have a gun (or any of these rights) then by God I will defend it with a gun.

It is not the fluffy animals I fear, it is the people that wish to take away my rights.

And I do so apologies to all members and moderators for this reply.

Why are you apologizing? You just participated in the opinion forums as it was intended. I'm happy to see you do it.


Since you are participating I would like to return to your initial posts.

its not the weapon that is the dangerous thing its we humans, we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, we are the only ones that will kill for sport, we are the only ones that will kill for curiosity, we are the only animal that kills countries, as you have something I want and lastly, we are the only sadistic animals that will enter a school full of kids age 7, 8, ,9, 10 and kill as many as we can before killing our selves. So should we have weapons, would you allow any animal this right, or would you also think twice before giving the most dangerous animal on the planet a weapon.

Dude, your way off. Dolphins kill, kidnap, and rape for sport. Some monkeys are so territorial, that they'll rip the testicles off an intruding monkey. I own several guns, and have yet had any thoughts of violence.

The question is do they use Guns. you only have to look back at history to see where we have come from and where we are heading. There is not a year that goes by, that you don’t hear in the news of another war, drive by shooting, young boy stabbed to death

You appear to contradict yourself here. You accuse humans of being the only animals that do all those things you list. But when someone points out others that do you come back and ask if we would give them guns. By doing so you admit that other animals do these things.

But to take you at face value: we do not need to give them guns. They come born with evolution designed weapons. Humans developed man-made weapons because our evolutionary achievement was our brain, not claws, teeth, or muscles. Animals come born with weapons and then do all the stuff you accuse humans of doing, minus the killing ourselves bit. Suicide requires self-awareness.

I said we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, you make referents to a how dangerous a monkey is, would you put an AK47 in the hands of a monkey and show him how to pull the trigger.

The monkeys he mention don't require an AK-47 as their muscular strength is enough. But if a monkey could understand rights, what they mean, and how they can be violated, and the consequences that come with that, then why not? The difference is that most humans do understand those things and do not intend to violate the rights of others.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Well said, FoolKiller.

I have to admit that everytime I here of a gun shooting on the news, I get mad because I know we are stepping closer and closer to a total arms ban, and these shootings just add fuel to the fire. Like I said, I own several guns, but only one is used for protection, the rest are for sport. I enjoy my guns like others enjoy auto racing. Kids die every year street racing, race car drivers die every year circuit racing and with the growing shortage of fuel, shouldn't we ban sportcars and auto racing all together. No, so why take my right to target practice.

 

[dranddad]

Foolkiller.

You make a lot of good points in your reply, but as morality and a person’s rights are not the topic of conversation in the debate, it’s the “illegality of civilian ownership” plus my quote if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it.

I didn’t make any suggestion what you would use it for you did that all by yourself.

Quote But if someone attempts to remove my right to have a gun (or any of these rights) then by God I will defend it with a gun.

Why do you need a gun to defend your rights.

You are defending your rights here, by debating your right to chose which ever option from the list you think fits your believes, your not holding a gun to my head to defend that right.

I can give you 10 good reasons not to have worldwide civilian ownership, hell you only have to look at the figures for the USA for 2000 I think it was, there are 25.000 good reason there.

Can you give me 10 good reasons for worldwide civilian ownership. If you can then maybe, you just may get me to change my option to I oppose control. And everybody should walk round with guns strapped to their side

 

[Scaff]

I vote for the top one, but then again nobody should have weapons, I tell you why, if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it, its not the weapon that is the dangerous thing its we humans,

First a question, define exactly what you mean by 'weapon', as I notice that you include knives in your list.

Does this mean that a large amount of my kitchen should be taken away from me, along with the contents of my shed (that sledgehammer and chainsaw must count). Simply because you believe I could use them in a dangerous manner.

Given that perspective you must surely also advocate the banning of all fuel and cars themselves.

Anything can be used as a weapon, and as such the logic (and I hesitate to call it such) of your point can be expanded almost endlessly.

we are the most dangerous animal on the planet, we are the only ones that will kill for sport, we are the only ones that will kill for curiosity,we are the only animal that kills countries, as you have something I want and lastly, we are the only sadistic animals that will enter a school full of kids age 7, 8, ,9, 10 and kill as many as we can before killing our selves.

Sorry but that is utter rubbish. Plenty of animals will kill for the reasons you give above. A fox will kill every chicken in a pen, killing far more than it will need for food or is capable of taking for its young, simply put it will kill because it is able to. Chimps are very, very well documented for attacks (often leading to death) with little or no motive.

Killing over land (or countries as you put it) is so common in the animal kingdom, that I am quite shocked that anyone would try and use it as a point.

Animals will also kill the young of others and their own. Cute little Syrian hamsters will kill their own young if they are unable to manage a full litter.

Yes humans are animals, but to single us out as the worst killers on the planet for the reasons you have given shows a rather niave understanding of a large number of other speices and how they behave and interact.

So should we have weapons, would you allow any animal this right, or would you also think twice before giving the most dangerous animal on the planet a weapon.

I go back to my first point, define a weapons.

If an animal of any kind wants to kill another animal it will use what it has avaliable to do the job, including tools (and that doesn't just apply to humans).

Banning the tool will not stop people killing one another at all, and would be addressing entirely the wrong problem.

He's one for you to ponder. After handguns were banned in the UK (in 1997 when I like many other perfectly law abiding people had to hand in our personal property), gun crime rose by 40% in the following two years and has continued to rise since.

Given that explain exactly how banning guns has worked and how further crackdowns will stop people killing each other.


Regards

Scaff

 

[mindwise]

It's a tricky issue,

I would not be sure how pushing something into illegality would really help, if not be counterproductive.
I am happy in my country there is much less possession of such weapons.
But i don't think the abundance of (hand)guns is helping fight crimes / shootings either.

Comparing guns to fuel or cars as a 'weapon' ? well sure you can kill with a car too, but a car has a useful purpose, like transportation.
What is the purpose of a gun? to shoot bullets is the only one i can think of, so i think that comparison is somewhat simple.

But like banning alcohol leads to illegal distillation, so will, i think, banning guns in the US, push illegal trade in guns increasing the amount of money made with crimes.

Strict(er) control perhaps.

Btw Scaff, the BBC also has a report on the subject dated 01/2008
Still not good news though, but it's a bit tricky to attribute the rise solely on the ban. Rates were increasing before the ban as well i guess...
It's hard to tell if without a ban the figure would be higher or lower....

 

[FoolKiller]

You make a lot of good points in your reply, but as morality and a person’s rights are not the topic of conversation in the debate, it’s the “illegality of civilian ownership”

If you think making something illegal is not a discussion of rights and morality then you do not understand rights and morality. When the government makes anything illegal they are removing a right. A discussion of the legality of civilian ownership is a very specific discussion of rights.

plus my quote if you have a weapon, gun, knife, rocket, missile atomic bomb, don’t matter what it is, at some point or other you are going to use it.

I didn’t make any suggestion what you would use it for you did that all by yourself.

Quote But if someone attempts to remove my right to have a gun (or any of these rights) then by God I will defend it with a gun.

Why do you need a gun to defend your rights.

Why would you not? Why would you allow anyone to come into your home with their guns and take away your rights without fighting back? If the US government made gun ownership illegal then they would enforce that law with guns. My only defense (assuming I actually owned a gun) would be the very guns they are trying to take away. Oh sure, they will pretend to ask and they will pretend to have my consent, but I will not give then consent to walk into my home and take away my rights. I will not play into their charade. If they want something in my home that I have a right to they will have to make it blatantly obvious what game they are playing before they can get it.

You are defending your rights here, by debating your right to chose which ever option from the list you think fits your believes, your not holding a gun to my head to defend that right.

Of course I am not holding a gun to your head now. You are not trying to take away my rights, just discussing whether the government should be allowed to. But if you came into my home intending to violate my rights, and I had a gun, yes I would defend myself from you.

I can give you 10 good reasons not to have worldwide civilian ownership, hell you only have to look at the figures for the USA for 2000 I think it was, there are 25.000 good reason there.

You are aware that most gun crime is not done with legally owned guns, right? You think gang members with criminal records just got a gun in a gun shop? No. They bought it off some guy in the street or stole it from someone. I am not saying that all gun crime is with illegally owned guns, but most people who intend to commit crime with a gun don't just buy one at Wal*Mart.

Can you give me 10 good reasons for worldwide civilian ownership.

10? Did you really just gift wrap that for me? Being from the UK I know you likely don't hold these as highly as I do (actually this discussion makes that obvious in one case), but my ten good reasons are:
Reason 1: Defense of:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Reason 2: Defense of:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Reason 3: Defense of:

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Reason 4: Defense of:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

For the purpose of space, and me not wanting to come of as a total jerk, I will just give you the link and say that defending each of these are my 10 reasons.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

And while I do recognize this is an American article, any country that respects its citizens should have very similar limits on the government.

If you can then maybe, you just may get me to change my option to I oppose control. And everybody should walk round with guns strapped to their side

No one here has promoted the idea of walking around like a bunch of cowboys with hip holsters. Most gun owners keep them stored away. When my wife's grandparents died we found that her grandfather had a rifle that none of us knew even existed. More often than not, when I find out someone owns a gun it was someone I didn't expect. I know for a fact that my dad owns two or three guns, but I have no clue where they are.

Gun ownership is not just about killing animals for food/sport or trying to look menacing. They are about self defense against both criminals and an over zealous government.

He's one for you to ponder. After handguns were banned in the UK (in 1997 when I like many other perfectly law abiding people had to hand in our personal property),

How did that work? What happened if you refused?

Comparing guns to fuel or cars as a 'weapon' ? well sure you can kill with a car too, but a car has a useful purpose, like transportation.
What is the purpose of a gun? to shoot bullets is the only one i can think of, so i think that comparison is somewhat simple.

Your description of a gun is somewhat simple, to the degree of saying the point of a car is roll.

The main purpose of a gun is not to attack humans unprovoked. Ask any responsible gun owner and it will be for hunting or defense.

Btw Scaff, the BBC also has a report on the subject dated 01/2008
Still not good news though, but it's a bit tricky to attribute the rise solely on the ban. Rates were increasing before the ban as well i guess...
It's hard to tell if without a ban the figure would be higher or lower....

I believe that the point is not that the ban made it go up, but rather that it didn't slow it down. The goal of the ban was to prevent gun crime, correct? Any other result shows that the ban has not done its job.

 

[Omnis]

Why do you need a gun to defend your rights.

Because the people who come to take your rights away come armed with guns. It was no different many years ago when people had swords. Guns, however, are such an advanced technology in comparison that it makes a level playing field... you don't need years of gunsmanship training to adequately defend yourself.

Of course we all wish we never have to use a gun to defend ourselves, but we don't live in such a utopia.

 

[dranddad]

Well said Foolkiller, at last 10 good reasons for civilians worldwide to own a gun, that is all I needed to know, now I shall change my vote to I oppose control, Everybody should have that right.

As I’m not a well educated man I didn’t know there where so many good reasons for owning a gun. But as its been pointed out I am niave, I still thought it should be left up to our armed forces to keep me safe, they have done a good job for me so far over the last 56 years, god bless and keep them safe.

I have never read those amendments before you have opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking.

Thank you foolkiller god bless you and keep you safe to, as like me you to don’t have a gun.

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

Many from USA who defends weapon here...no wonder why you guys have so many prisoners. Glad we dont have that kind of mentality in norway. I support stricly control.

 

[Duke]

I still thought it should be left up to our armed forces to keep me safe, they have done a good job for me so far over the last 56 years, god bless and keep them safe.

So... who protects you against your government?

 

[livemusic]

I'd just like to add that I did change my view on this, and a radical change at that as my original vote was in the "I support complete illegality of civilian ownership" option. It's funny how Ayn Rand's ideas can change a person's mind. Now I'm inclined to say "I oppose control" but I do feel people should get at least some basic training on how to use a weapon properly to be eligible to use one. I never owned or even handled a real weapon so I'm not sure how complex (or simple) it might be.

 

[dranddad]

So... who protects you against your government?

You tell me, i dont know if they all own guns, do you think I should go out and buy one.

 

[Duke]

Now I'm inclined to say "I oppose control" but I do feel people should get at least some basic training on how to use a weapon properly to be eligible to use one.

I think 99.9% of us supporting legal private ownership agree with this sentiment.

I never owned or even handled a real weapon so I'm not sure how complex (or simple) it might be.

80% of gun safety is paying attention. The other 20% is pure common sense.

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

sorry. missunderstanding

 

[Pako]

A sixteen year old wearing a mask runs into a pharmaceutical store with his buddy preparing to rob the place. The head pharmacists shoots the first guy then runs after the second person. He then comes back and shoots the kid that's on the ground 5 more times.....just to make sure he doesn't get up.

It's sad to think that we value small amounts of money over that of a human life. There is also a lack of respect for other people's property. They are charging the pharmacists with 1st degree murder last I heard, not because he defended the shop, but because when he came back, the threat was already removed before he fired 5 more shots.

The fact that we need guns for self defense sucks, there is no argument there. How about we do a better job teaching our kids right from wrong so we don't need to pack heat under the counter. Instead, we can leave our rifles and guns locked up where they should be, safe from causing harm to anyone, getting it out for the occasional hunt or recreational shoot.

 

[Scaff]

How did that work? What happened if you refused?

It was done in a rather sneaky manner, in that the ban only applied to handguns (which were mainly collected and used for target shooting in the UK), not to shotguns or long arms. As such they avoided any major backlash from the farming community, they also drove the law through via media generated public opinion over the Dunblane shootings.

The practical side of it was you either handed you guns in for disposal to the police by a certain date or they would collect them from you house on that date.

Refusal would have resulted in being charged with possesion of an unlawful firearm, which carries a prison sentance and the gun would be disposed of as well. In the UK we have no right to arms and as such no defence in the law.

IT SUCKED

I believe that the point is not that the ban made it go up, but rather that it didn't slow it down. The goal of the ban was to prevent gun crime, correct? Any other result shows that the ban has not done its job.

Yes the main arguments for it were that it would reduce gun violence, both of the kind that happened in Dunblane (one of only two that have occured in the UK) and gun crime in general.

Of course this has totally failed to reduce the level of gun violence in the UK in any way at all, as incidents of the Dunblane type have always been rare in the UK and the majority of gun crime is not carried out by legal owners of guns.

Many from USA who defends weapon here...no wonder why you guys have so many prisoners. Glad we dont have that kind of mentality in norway. I support stricly control.

I'm not from the US and I fully support gun ownership.

Legally owning a gun has nothing at all to do with prison numbers and I would love to know how you believe the two are related?

It may also be of interest to you that prior to the UK handgun ban more people (per 100,000) were killed with guns in 'safe' Norway that the UK.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

0.11 per 100,000 for the UK and 0.30 per 100,000 for Norway.

So it would appear that, in comparison to the UK, Norway most certainly does have that kind of mentality. Its people that cause the problem not the damn gun, if someone wants to kill another human being they will do it with whatever they can.


Regards

Scaff

 

[dranddad]

Pako

That’s an horrific story, of what someone will do with a gun.

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

Scaff: Maybe I was not clear enough, I am not against legally owned weapon, but the mentality "I have a gun so I can shoot who ever steps on my property" with that kind of mentality there is going to be more prisoners . See if you find some stats on how many murders done by gun in norway.

 

[Pako]

Not sure if I have mentioned this or not. My father, a minister and administrative District Superintendent, has to travel the large states of Montana and Wyoming to serve his 49 churches. He drives an average of 100,000 miles a year in a motor home which my mom and gradma also travel with. They often stay in rest area's and parks while on the road. Since he started doing this, he has gotten his concealed weapons permit for his 9mm and .357. He also had a gun smith shorten the barrel on his 12g shot gun to the shortest legal length. Much to my surprise, I asked him why all the fire power. To his honesty, he said if I ever needed to protect your mom or grandma, I need to be prepared. I asked him, "but dad....you're a preacher....church leader...., thou shalt not kill, love your neighbor, and all that....", his response was that if the cocking noise of the shot gun doesn't cause someone to think twice about stepping into his motor home, he would have no problem shooting them in the legs. "I'll aim low", he said. "I don't ever want to kill anyone, but there are a lot of sick people out there and I need to be able to protect my loved ones."

I can respect that.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff: Maybe I was not clear enough, I am not against legally owned weapon, but the mentality "I have a gun so I can shoot who ever steps on my property" with that kind of mentality there is going to be more prisoners . See if you find some stats on how many murders done by gun in norway.

Maybe you should follow the link I provided, as that provides the exact answer to the question you just asked.

I would also love you to find me exactly who in this thread has stated they believe they have the right to shoot who ever steps on property they own.

A BIG difference exists between self-defence (that would not result in you not going to jail and what has been advocated here) and simply shooting someone for standing on your land (which would be murder and you would be jailed for it).

I think you are a little guilty here of reading what you what people to say (to support your view) and not what they have actually said.

Pro-gun and/or American does not equal Pro-murder, yet that seems to be what you are saying here.

Regards

Scaff

 

[FoolKiller]

As I’m not a well educated man I didn’t know there where so many good reasons for owning a gun. But as its been pointed out I am niave, I still thought it should be left up to our armed forces to keep me safe, they have done a good job for me so far over the last 56 years, god bless and keep them safe.

The United States was founded on a principle of individual freedom and our founding documents show it as they do more to limit government than they do to limit individual rights. You will note that all ten of those amendments do not limit a single right of an individual, but instead ensure that they will never be violated by the government itself.

And yes, the armed forces do keep you safe from threats, internal and abroad, but what happens when your government leaders choose to turn those armed forces on you?

That is why the second amendment is there. While still just colonies we attempted to protest unfair taxation and it slowly led to a point where speech was limited and weapons were to be outlawed in areas where protests had occurred. Had it not been for the colonies coming together, guaranteeing weapons were delivered to those who had them taken away, the people being oppressed would not have stood a chance against the soldiers who were pouring in off the boats.

In the end the sole reason why a government should never be allowed to take your gun away is that any government who is willing to do that may need to be opposed with guns.

They are charging the pharmacists with 1st degree murder last I heard, not because he defended the shop, but because when he came back, the threat was already removed before he fired 5 more shots.

I am not sure 1st degree murder is the deserved charge, unless they can prove that the first shot would not have been fatal. He should be charged, but the minor differences between the various degrees of murder and manslaughter should come into play here.


Scaff, I can't honestly say I would have complied with that law.

 

[mindwise]

Your description of a gun is somewhat simple, to the degree of saying the point of a car is roll.

Fair enough, how about a gun's purpose is to be a weapon.

The main purpose of a gun is not to attack humans unprovoked. Ask any responsible gun owner and it will be for hunting or defense.

Hmmm, hopefully that's the owners intended purpose, like the intended purpose of a car can be racing, but a gun is a weapon by design, like a car (automobile) is a means of transportation by design.
And guns for hunting? surely they use rifles.

There has to be an arbitrary line between an H-Bomb and a kitchen knife.

No responsible person would ever fire an nuke, so are we denying a right there?

There are still statistics that say the amount of guns available in the US are not a good thing for society as a whole. At least, i would not claim Americans are more violent then i.e. Europeans, i am not convinced the amount of guns available does not correlate to how often guns are used.
Some stats, if they are any good, i cannot say for sure (and sorry for the large size, it was barely readable otherwise.

source Harvard medical:

Surely colored, but i doubt the stats are complete nonsense.

 

[FoolKiller]

Fair enough, how about a gun's purpose is to be a weapon.

Define weapon.

Hmmm, hopefully it's owners intended purpose is that what you say, like the intended purpose of a car can be racing, but a gun is a weapon by design, like a car (automobile) is a means of transportation by design.

Do you prevent anyone from owning a car because some idiots choose to race them in the streets? No. You take away that one man's car. Similarly, we prevent criminals from legally obtaining a gun via background checks.

And guns for hunting? surely they use rifles.

Um, a rifle is a gun.

There has to be an arbitrary line between an H-Bomb and a kitchen knife.

Cost.

No responsible person would ever fire an nuke, so are we denying a right there?

You are just being difficult now. A gun is not a weapon of mass destruction. A nuke would not be used for personal defense. A nuke, in any use would kill innocent lives, thus violating their rights. A Gun, when used appropriately, does not violate anyone's rights.

There are still statistics that say the amount of guns available in the US are not a good thing for society as a whole.

The best thing for society as a whole is to preserve the rights of the individuals. Doing whatever society deems is best, or is best for society, is mob rule. The US specifically designed our laws to defend the rights of the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. The only way to protect society as a whole is to protect the individual. When you begin discussing society as a whole, you are saying those who disagree get trampled on, and that is unacceptable.

At least, i would not claim Americans are more violent then i.e. Europeans, i am not convinced the amount of guns available does not correlate to how often guns are used.

What does it matter how often guns are used if violence may be higher anyway? If you kill someone, whether it be with a gun or a kitchen knife you have still killed someone, still violated the same right, still committed the same crime.

If gun removal does not prevent murder, gun or no gun, then what does it matter?


And how does any statistic justify the removal of individual rights?

 

[Duke]

A sixteen year old wearing a mask runs into a pharmaceutical store with his buddy preparing to rob the place. The head pharmacists shoots the first guy then runs after the second person.

No problem.

He then comes back and shoots the kid that's on the ground 5 more times.....just to make sure he doesn't get up.

PROBLEM.

They are charging the pharmacists with 1st degree murder last I heard, not because he defended the shop, but because when he came back, the threat was already removed before he fired 5 more shots.

As they should.

 

[Pako]

He would have been fine, as it would have been self defense had he not come back in and unloaded the gun upon his return. What kind of person does that? I see no justification for that. Talk about some serious anger. I wonder how many times he was robbed prior to live in that kind of fear. It's really too bad.

 

[Jay]

It was done in a rather sneaky manner, in that the ban only applied to handguns (which were mainly collected and used for target shooting in the UK), not to shotguns or long arms. As such they avoided any major backlash from the farming community, they also drove the law through via media generated public opinion over the Dunblane shootings.

The practical side of it was you either handed you guns in for disposal to the police by a certain date or they would collect them from you house on that date.

Refusal would have resulted in being charged with possesion of an unlawful firearm, which carries a prison sentance and the gun would be disposed of as well. In the UK we have no right to arms and as such no defence in the law.

IT SUCKED

Did they give you a buy back scheme like they did here? They ban a type of firearm but give you a certain time to bring it in and they will buy it for a excellent price, I personally made good profit then went back to a gun dealer and bought new handguns just as big and powerful that fell into a loophole

Illegal weapons were also able to be handed in for no money but no questions asked and if you didn't hand in the registered firearm they also would come after you with charges and home searches.

 

[mindwise]

Similarly, we prevent criminals from legally obtaining a gun via background checks.

Cost.

lol

You are just being difficult now. A gun is not a weapon of mass destruction. A nuke would not be used for personal defense.

That's true, i wanted to leave it M16-a4 or a mortar or something.
But i like the "at absurdum" thingy
Not relevant to this, but the USA has them (nukes) as self defence right?
Yet, they do not really allow other states, like Iran, to have them.
Different discussion, that's true, and neither do i know your stance on that....
so, i'll just stick to, yes i agree, i am being difficult there

The best thing for society as a whole is to preserve the rights of the individuals. Doing whatever society deems is best, or is best for society, is mob rule. The US specifically designed our laws to defend the rights of the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. The only way to protect society as a whole is to protect the individual. When you begin discussing society as a whole, you are saying those who disagree get trampled on, and that is unacceptable.

Sure, and i know you are pretty keen on the rights of the individual, and good at that too i have to say.
But i think that an individual also has the right not get shot, or a society as safe as possible for everyone. If statistics would clearly show, that more gun possession leads to a lot more victims (and i think they do), then whose rights are we trying to protect?

What does it matter how often guns are used if violence may be higher anyway? If you kill someone, whether it be with a gun or a kitchen knife you have still killed someone, still violated the same right, still committed the same crime.

If gun removal does not prevent murder, gun or no gun, then what does it matter?

Sure, and IF gun removal does prevent murder?
I don't think the power of a knife is anywhere near the power of firearms, the two can not be compared i think. sure they are both deadly, and so is a pencil. or a hand, or a plastic bag. but there are limits to what is practical.
I cannot chop an onion with my tongue.

And how does any statistic justify the removal of individual rights?

There are many rights we need to consider, not just the rights of someone to own a gun i think.
"how would any statistic justify" well, any statistic?, are you sure about that?
(edit) aaah, never mind, fortunately, we both already live in the right country for what we want

 

[Keef]

He's one for you to ponder. After handguns were banned in the UK (in 1997 when I like many other perfectly law abiding people had to hand in our personal property)...

How did that work? What happened if you refused?

It was done in a rather sneaky manner, in that the ban only applied to handguns (which were mainly collected and used for target shooting in the UK), not to shotguns or long arms. As such they avoided any major backlash from the farming community, they also drove the law through via media generated public opinion over the Dunblane shootings.

The practical side of it was you either handed you guns in for disposal to the police by a certain date or they would collect them from you house on that date.

Refusal would have resulted in being charged with possesion of an unlawful firearm, which carries a prison sentance and the gun would be disposed of as well. In the UK we have no right to arms and as such no defence in the law.

IT SUCKED

Scaff, I can't honestly say I would have complied with that law.

Very interesting. At the shop I used to work many of the guys were experienced and responsible gun owners, for both hunting and sport, and a couple of them have Ohio's conceal-and-carry license. I remember asking them their opinions on what to do if the government suddenly outlawed guns, and we talked about it for quite a while.

They said they would not voluntarily turn in their guns. Easy enough, but when it comes time for a police or military office to come knocking on your door and asking you to turn over your guns, then what do you do? Some of them thought they might just say "no" and shut the door. Or maybe bury the guns in their back yard somewhere, and say you don't have any. If they're not registered then they have no proof that you own any, eh? If they're registered, then tough luck.

I guess the only thing you could hope for in a case like that here in the States is that a very large number of folk agree with one another and refuse to hand over their guns. That's a case where democracy would come in handy. But what happens if there isn't a majority opposing the government?

 

[FoolKiller]

Congratulations. You just showed that gun control does not prevent people who aren't supposed to have a gun from getting one, as a number of those listed are not through a source that obtained it legally themselves.

Not relevant to this, but the USA has them (nukes) as self defence right?
Yet, they do not really allow other states, like Iran, to have them.
Different discussion, that's true, and neither do i know your stance on that....
so, i'll just stick to, yes i agree, i am being difficult there

The issue there is that there is an international agreement signed by these parties after the US and Russia had nukes. So any new nukes are basically a treaty violation. Of course, it is much more complex and not something we should get into in this thread.

Sure, and i know you are pretty keen on the rights of the individual, and good at that too i have to say.
But i think that an individual also has the right not get shot, or a society as safe as possible for everyone.

How does gun ownership prevent that? If I have a gun how does that violate your right? If I use that gun against you then I violate your rights. You are arguing against an act that violates no rights.

If statistics would clearly show, that more gun possession leads to a lot more victims (and i think they do), then whose rights are we trying to protect?

If statistics show that allowing freedom of speech leads to more hate crime as racist groups can recruit openly, should we outlaw that? Statistics likely show that freedom of speech also leads to more government protests.

Statistics could probably also show that a homeless guy stealing my money means he gets to eat more too. Allowing that would allow for less starvation deaths in society.

The fact is that we already have laws against the rights violation. It is illegal to use a gun to rape, steal or murder. But it is legal to use a gun for hunting, sport, collecting, or self defense. You are arguing for something that is already protected by law. If you want to create preventative laws, thus treating everyone as a suspected criminal, then you have to outlaw all sorts of things.

Sure, and IF gun removal does prevent murder?

I will ignore that you are using an if statement as an argument just to humor you.

Taking every car off the road WILL prevent auto deaths, which are higher than gun related deaths.

I don't think the power of a knife is anywhere near the power of firearms, the two can not be compared i think. sure they are both deadly, and so is a pencil. or a hand, or a plastic bag. but there are limits to what is practical.
I cannot chop an onion with my tongue.

And I can't defend against an armed intruder with my hands.

There are many rights we need to consider, not just the rights of someone to own a gun i think.
"how would any statistic justify" well, any statistic?, are you sure about that?

Yes.

You're giving a free hand here......

Not when you talk about reality and absolutes.

If a statistic would deem that my chances of getting shot are 100% (or 50% or ....but free hand right, so 100%), while in countries with strict gun control it is 0.1%, then allowing people to own gun -i think- is a violation of my right to live in safe environment.

If it was 100% then neither of us would be here discussing this would we? The simple fact that it is able to be debated means that all your Ifs are pointless. If gun ownership alone meant you were killed by a gun, guaranteed, then gun ownership would also mean that a gun is not a gun as we know it.

But then again, i think protection should be provided by the state, and not to be left in individual.

What happens when you need protection from the state?

But what happens if there isn't a majority opposing the government?

We have Montana.