Guns

[jas]

After a brief discussion on another thread that went something like this:

Just to clarify, are you saying that the outlaw of guns is a bad thing?

Yes. Start a new thread if you wish to debate the topic, and I'll answer whenever I get a minute to do so.

I decided to do just that. What are your views? I'm a Brit and guns aren't as much of an issue here, but it seems to me that outlawing them could only be a good thing. I realise that there is a problem with this, similar to one we have in the UK with knives at the moment: outlawing them is all very well but (generally) the people who hand them in are law-abiding citizens, and those who choose not to are presumably criminals, or in a place where they're too frightened not have one. The obvious outcome is that criminals are armed, non-criminals aren't.

And then there's the glamorisation of them. 50 Cent's people were made to remove the posters for his film because they showed him holding a gun. Does this actually influence people to use guns, or is it just the authorities being stuffy?

And something else I was wondering about is, why are some guns legal in certain places when others aren't? What makes one more dangerous than another?

Does anyone agree with me? Disagree with me? I'm curious about what other people think, especially people who live in places where gun crime is a real problem.

Jas

[amanfang]

I certainly would not want to see guns outlawed.  (I live in the US, southeast.)  I would agree that people who wanted guns for violent reasons would still be able to get them, and then normal people would have no means of defense should the need arise.  Some friends of mine argued against guns due to children (like what if your kids found the gun at home, were playing with it, and shot someone, etc).  Personally, when I was growing up, I always knew where my mom's gun was (it was not loaded), and I also knew where the bullets were, which were kept in a different place, though nearby.  My parents gave me a healthy respect for weapons, so that I knew not to mess with it, plus if I had, I would have been in BIG trouble.  By the way, they also taught us to shoot it while my brother and I were still in elementary school.

[prometheus]

Guns are used to shoot people. So they have no real usage. Shooting people is bad and almost always illegal.

Only with a gun someone that turns crazy, which is really just impossible to prevent, can kill several people.

If there is a fight, which is a lot more common, without any weapons people can often go wild without really serious injuries if there is some luck. Sure, you can kill someone with one blow to the head. But you can have a serious brawl without serious injuries.

If a person has a knife he can kill one and injure a few people. If someone goes on a frenzy killing with a knife she or he can suprise one person and kill that person. But with only a knife the other people can react, run away, jump on the person with the knife together, etc.

With a gun a crazy can go on and on killing people until the person is out of ammo or until the person encounters armed cops. Often the person wants to do a suicide by cop while killing as many beforehand.

There is this one case of a scared female who descided to wear a gun. She ended up shooting her attackers to protect her purse. She apperently thought the gun would give her power. But her attackers were reckless or desperate enough to attack her anyway. She shot one in the shoulder. The other guy pulled him away. But he then returned. Then that person was shot in the belly.

I mean, what is the point of this. I rather lose my wallet than have to kill two people. I mean, it is not worth it at all. What did she think? And then she was also found guilty. Her weapon was illegal and of course the killing also went to far. But she just couldn't handle the situation. Since she already has life long for killing someone and seeing blood all over, looking into the eyes of her dying attacker her actual punishment was only the penalty of owning an illegal gun. But what did she achive? Did this turn out better than without a gun? I mean, they were after her money and not there to rape her or something. But in a case of rape, since I am not a female it is hard to tell me what is worse, to shoot two and kill one or to be raped. In any case she is a victim.

As for burglars. Any good burglar knows that he has to be unarmed to do her or his job. If his victim wakes up she or he needs to get the heck out of there. Of course there are going to be exceptions. So why do you need a gun? Do you want to kill a fleeing burglar in your house? I mean, would you still want to live in the same place? Would you like the eat in the place where a human bled to death? I mean, human bodies have a lot of blood. People are often shocked at the amount of blood. Of course it depends on the actual wound. Gun shot wounds may also not bleed at all.

And then you can become the victim of your own weapon. Or a third person can become the victim. Especially with a gun.

So one is no safer with a gun. One may feel safe, people are irrational, but then when you are confronted with the fact that you aren't things may turn out very nasty and live serious scars on your soul.

As for the gun issue in the US. It was origionally put in the constitution so that the citizens could protect themselves against their government. But for the pro-guns people it is now a symbol of american style 'freedom'. I am not sure if this is called the freedom to torture yourself by killing you attacker.

Also, the issue with the amount of homocides is not the amount of weapons or the weapon restrictions. Though weapons are that what makes cases like Colombine possible. It seems that utter fear is the cause of the violence in the US. I remember reading reviews at a review site for musical instruments and electric guitar equipment. Most of the reviews had a 'If it would be stolen I would buy it again...'-phrase. It really took me a long time to figure this out. I mean, why would it get stolen? Apperently this is on the surface of the american culture. It isn't that they really think it will get stolen. It is just a way to tell that they will buy make the same decision tomorrow.

Everyone knows that politicians use fear to restraint the beast called the people. Actually that is how Alexander Hamilton. described the people; 'the great beast that must be tamed'. Actually, american history has some very silly examples. A recent one of course being Iraq destroying america while all Kuwaiti knew that Iraq couldn't even attack them. I mean, Iraq had no army to speak of whatsoever. Same with Grenada. I mean, Grenada attacking and defeating the US? Haha. But many people in the US were made to believe these two examples.

Same thing happens in other countries. When something like a terrorist attack happens governments know they have an oppertunity to restrict the people. Actually, it happens even after an earthquake. Such a disaster changes the general opinion and people expect something from the state. And the state knows it has an oppertunity to 'tame the beas'. Almost all countries, even western democracies, saw the oppertunity to pass 'anti-terrorism'-legislation, yes Orwellian terminology, to restrict civil rights.

Actually, I am probably a small minority in my country who has ever shot with a firearm. I used to be a member of a shooting range. I have never seen or heard about someone owning an illegal sidearm or something. I do not know where to get one. I do know that criminal people can get one in a few days. But in the country just south of mine you can just walk into a shop, but a weapon and leave. It only takes a couple of minutes. But they were already changing this.
Recently a depressed teenager wanted to commit suicide. In north-belgium, flemish part since belgium is really two countries in one, one out of three people votes of a racist party. So this kid descided to buy a gun, a hunting rifle, and do 'something good' before he died. He bought a gun and killed any foreigner he saw. He managed to kill an african aupair with a while baby, collateral damage I guess, and injured a turkish woman. Luckely for the other people around police was nearby and they managed to disable him by shooting him in the shoulder. Of course he asked to be killed.
This can never happen with illegal guns. I mean, you could get a weapon but it would take some time so one could change ones mind. This person could buy a weapon and kill people in one impulse.

[zheer]

This topic got me thinking about weapons, and when you think about it, the single most important thing for survival has always been a weapon of some sort.

[prometheus]

I think running away has been the most important through human history.

[gilad]

i wonder what dick cheney feelings are about guns?

when ever me and my brothers see skynews speaking about bans on knives in engalnd we pack up laughing, it seems ludicrous, but than again, apparently knife wounds claim many lives there. when i was five years old i had a huge knife collection, i could buy them myself, no problems.

guns here are a problem. i have had 3 held to my head, and twice had punks lift there shirts to threaten me by showing their gun tucked into their pants. the one time this guy on a motorbike drove past me recklessly so i hooted at him, at the next traffic light he reveals his gun under his jacket. so yes, ridiculous, thats no reason to flash a gun.

Guns are to often in the hands of the wrong people. i hate guns, they are an instrument of death.

[zheer]

Guns are to often in the hands of the wrong people. i hate guns, they are an instrument of death.

   True.

[jre58591]

i wonder what dick cheney feelings are about guns?

here is your answer:

https://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/fg-dick-cheney-p1.php

[thalbergmad]

Me az not got a gun but i have got a 100lb pull longbow.

It would not be wise to shoot anyone as me az written my name on the arrows.

Thal

[lisztisforkids]

Banning guns is an absolutlely absurd idea. What good can come of it? What we need is a change of culutre.

[lisztisforkids]

Guns are used to shoot people. So they have no real usage. Shooting people is bad and almost always illegal.

Only with a gun someone that turns crazy, which is really just impossible to prevent, can kill several people.

If there is a fight, which is a lot more common, without any weapons people can often go wild without really serious injuries if there is some luck. Sure, you can kill someone with one blow to the head. But you can have a serious brawl without serious injuries.

If a person has a knife he can kill one and injure a few people. If someone goes on a frenzy killing with a knife she or he can suprise one person and kill that person. But with only a knife the other people can react, run away, jump on the person with the knife together, etc.

With a gun a crazy can go on and on killing people until the person is out of ammo or until the person encounters armed cops. Often the person wants to do a suicide by cop while killing as many beforehand.

There is this one case of a scared female who descided to wear a gun. She ended up shooting her attackers to protect her purse. She apperently thought the gun would give her power. But her attackers were reckless or desperate enough to attack her anyway. She shot one in the shoulder. The other guy pulled him away. But he then returned. Then that person was shot in the belly.

I mean, what is the point of this. I rather lose my wallet than have to kill two people. I mean, it is not worth it at all. What did she think? And then she was also found guilty. Her weapon was illegal and of course the killing also went to far. But she just couldn't handle the situation. Since she already has life long for killing someone and seeing blood all over, looking into the eyes of her dying attacker her actual punishment was only the penalty of owning an illegal gun. But what did she achive? Did this turn out better than without a gun? I mean, they were after her money and not there to rape her or something. But in a case of rape, since I am not a female it is hard to tell me what is worse, to shoot two and kill one or to be raped. In any case she is a victim.

As for burglars. Any good burglar knows that he has to be unarmed to do her or his job. If his victim wakes up she or he needs to get the heck out of there. Of course there are going to be exceptions. So why do you need a gun? Do you want to kill a fleeing burglar in your house? I mean, would you still want to live in the same place? Would you like the eat in the place where a human bled to death? I mean, human bodies have a lot of blood. People are often shocked at the amount of blood. Of course it depends on the actual wound. Gun shot wounds may also not bleed at all.

And then you can become the victim of your own weapon. Or a third person can become the victim. Especially with a gun.

So one is no safer with a gun. One may feel safe, people are irrational, but then when you are confronted with the fact that you aren't things may turn out very nasty and live serious scars on your soul.

As for the gun issue in the US. It was origionally put in the constitution so that the citizens could protect themselves against their government. But for the pro-guns people it is now a symbol of american style 'freedom'. I am not sure if this is called the freedom to torture yourself by killing you attacker.

Also, the issue with the amount of homocides is not the amount of weapons or the weapon restrictions. Though weapons are that what makes cases like Colombine possible. It seems that utter fear is the cause of the violence in the US. I remember reading reviews at a review site for musical instruments and electric guitar equipment. Most of the reviews had a 'If it would be stolen I would buy it again...'-phrase. It really took me a long time to figure this out. I mean, why would it get stolen? Apperently this is on the surface of the american culture. It isn't that they really think it will get stolen. It is just a way to tell that they will buy make the same decision tomorrow.

Everyone knows that politicians use fear to restraint the beast called the people. Actually that is how Alexander Hamilton. described the people; 'the great beast that must be tamed'. Actually, american history has some very silly examples. A recent one of course being Iraq destroying america while all Kuwaiti knew that Iraq couldn't even attack them. I mean, Iraq had no army to speak of whatsoever. Same with Grenada. I mean, Grenada attacking and defeating the US? Haha. But many people in the US were made to believe these two examples.

Same thing happens in other countries. When something like a terrorist attack happens governments know they have an oppertunity to restrict the people. Actually, it happens even after an earthquake. Such a disaster changes the general opinion and people expect something from the state. And the state knows it has an oppertunity to 'tame the beas'. Almost all countries, even western democracies, saw the oppertunity to pass 'anti-terrorism'-legislation, yes Orwellian terminology, to restrict civil rights.

Actually, I am probably a small minority in my country who has ever shot with a firearm. I used to be a member of a shooting range. I have never seen or heard about someone owning an illegal sidearm or something. I do not know where to get one. I do know that criminal people can get one in a few days. But in the country just south of mine you can just walk into a shop, but a weapon and leave. It only takes a couple of minutes. But they were already changing this.
Recently a depressed teenager wanted to commit suicide. In north-belgium, flemish part since belgium is really two countries in one, one out of three people votes of a racist party. So this kid descided to buy a gun, a hunting rifle, and do 'something good' before he died. He bought a gun and killed any foreigner he saw. He managed to kill an african aupair with a while baby, collateral damage I guess, and injured a turkish woman. Luckely for the other people around police was nearby and they managed to disable him by shooting him in the shoulder. Of course he asked to be killed.
This can never happen with illegal guns. I mean, you could get a weapon but it would take some time so one could change ones mind. This person could buy a weapon and kill people in one impulse.

  My goodness.. What nonsense. Will disect later but have to help my dad move.

[pianistimo]

my earphones aren't working, but that clip about cheney made me die laughing.  i mean, if he can make a mistake out hunting (hope it wasn't like that) - probably most people who don't hunt a lot could too.  if u have a gun - u have to be really up on using it.  otherwise - as pointed out - u'll be killing people right and left without even trying.  the only clint eastwood pic i liked was 'three mules for sister sarah.'  that was because he was actually contemplating his actions.  in some movies - it's like if the person looks meek and is begging for their life - they deserve a shot in thehead. 

[jas]

when ever me and my brothers see skynews speaking about bans on knives in engalnd we pack up laughing, it seems ludicrous, but than again, apparently knife wounds claim many lives there. when i was five years old i had a huge knife collection, i could buy them myself, no problems.

Really? That's quite scary. You seem quite normal (a back-handed compliment if ever there was one ), but even so... If I saw my little brother (who's 9) with a knife in hand that he wasn't using to chop vegetables with I'd be horrified. Not that I'm the best person to be using knives. Every time I look at one I end up with a cut finger. Rather mine than his, though.

guns here are a problem. i have had 3 held to my head, and twice had punks lift there shirts to threaten me by showing their gun tucked into their pants. the one time this guy on a motorbike drove past me recklessly so i hooted at him, at the next traffic light he reveals his gun under his jacket.

I can't even imagine someone doing that here, you're more likely to get the finger. If someone here did that they'd probably find themselves in court.

i hate guns, they are an instrument of death.

This is true. Whether used offensively or defensively, their purpose is to kill.

Banning guns is an absolutlely absurd idea. What good can come of it? What we need is a change of culutre.

Yes, but that's a gradual thing, and banning guns is a necessary means to that end. It's not absurd at all. What's absurd is that we've come to a point where, in some places, not to have a gun is dangerous. The law needs to change, which is obviously easier said than done.

There was a case here a while ago that caused a massive stir in the press. A bloke called Tony Martin was burgled at his farm, and he had a shotgun, which he used against the two burglars. One was killed -- for which the farmer was sentenced to life -- and the other was injured. This is the bit that I find just incredible: the injured burglar was given the right by a judge to sue the farmer because they didn't want to infringe his human rights. It's insane. Whether the farmer was right or wrong in shooting them aside, the fact that the sad little scumbag then decided to sue the person he burgled, making himself out to be the victim and villifying the farmer, is ridiculous. This country's getting so PC the legal system hasn't a trace of common sense left.

Jas

[zheer]

. This country's getting so PC the legal system hasn't a trace of common sense left.

Jas

   According to the law, if a burglar is hurt or injured during burglary, for example the oven was not swiched off and the burglar had his hand stuck in the oven. Then the burglar can sue the house owner for damages. ( the law might have changed slightly since then )

[prometheus]

Haha, if he burns his hands because the oven is turned on? You mean when you beat or shoot her or him...

Almost all countries have those laws. Not very strange...

[zheer]

You mean when you beat or shoot her or him...

  No thats not what i mean, but yeah you would get into very big trouble if you do that.
If you had friend at your house or apartment , then you are responsible for their safety, but the sad thing is you are then also responsible for the safety of a burglar if they enter you house or apartment. ( Ahhhhhhhh i wont go into detail )

[prometheus]

I don't believe you.

[zheer]

I don't believe you.

    Ok its a piano forum so i wont go into detail, but it has something to do with human rights violation. Long story.

[thalbergmad]

    Ok its a piano forum so i wont go into detail, but it has something to do with human rights violation. Long story.

The good old Human Rights Act.

Protect the Criminals, sod the victims and make Mrs Bliar a fortune.

[musik_man]

Gun rights boil down to one question.  Do you think people are responsible enough to choose whether or not to carry one?  Or Should the government decide for them?  Apparently most of the board here doesn't put great stock in mankind.

We should also take into account how nearly everytime a group was repressed, their weapons were confiscated.  Everywhere from peasants in Feudal Japan or Europe to the Jim Crow South.

[lisztisforkids]

Just to clarify one thing, I am not a gun enthusiaist. I do not own one, I do not like them, I detest guns, but....

 
 People have a right to defend themselves. Anti-gun logic: Ban guns=Less crime, murder. This is utterly false. Banning guns only does one thing, it takes away guns from law abiding
citezens and lets criminals have them. You cannot stop criminals from having guns.

 I agree that there are to many guns (hell, i live in the us) but what we need are not gun restrictions, but a change in culture were we dont need to have guns. I do acknowledge that there are many 'gun nuts' out there, (my brother owns 8 guns stashed all over his house so if he gets attacked all he has to is reach) but for the most part they are just incredibly paranoid people that are slightly pyschotic.

[prometheus]

Well, first you claim that I talk non-sense. And then you say stuff that enforces my points. I did type a lot. Are you sure you did read my post?


I mean, I talked toroughly about what the difference is with crime with guns and without guns. I also talked about paranoid people. And those are also your points.

I never claimed banning guns reduce crimes. It is clear that a gun does not reduce crime. A weapon is a force multiplier. A nut without a weapon is harmless. With a knife she or he can butcher one person. With a gun that person can kill as many people as the person has ammo until the person encounters someone who also has a gun, ie the cops.

As for an anti-gun law taking away guns from normal people and giving them to criminals. That is of course not true. A law bans guns for everyone, including criminals. Of course criminals descide to break the law and try not to get caught. So this is just a staw man argument. Sure, there will be criminals with guns.

Criminals with guns use them for two purposes. One, they kill other criminals. Organised crime. Organised crime is financed with drug money. Taking drug money away by legalising the other hards drugs just like alcohol and nicotine is one step.

Then you have lower class criminals. They will use it to rob people. If you just give away the money and act smart nothing will happen to you. Of course then the cops need to catch these people. Often this is not hard to do because these people will be jobless drug addicts that need to do a lot of robbing. The problem with these people is that they are very often unredeemable. Important to note is that their money often goes to organised crime since they are often drug addicts.

Then you have scum with guns. These people just carry guns for no reason at all. They also aren't criminals. They will get into fights and then use their weapon.

Then you have nuts that are able to get their hands on guns. Either because of weak gun restrictions or because of connections. These cases are probably the most famous. Every once in a while a person goes ape, bananas, whatever they say in english, and when they manage to get a gun things can get very nasty. These people are often suicidal. They only manage to kill more than one people in the case of a father or mother killing their children and partner.

So banning guns may not solve a lot of problems instantly. I also see no reason to hand out guns everywhere. I mean, in the US you can buy weapons in a supermarket like wallmart, right? There should at least be gun control of some kind. I don't see whats wrong with claiming to ban guns for almost everyone. I mean, guns are made to kill things. You are not allowed to kill your attacker in most cases. So why do people need guns? I mean it would be silly to say that everyone can carry a gun but no one is allowed to use it. That would be hypocrisy.


As for Musik_Man's comment about using weapons against the state. You probably know I am no big friend of the state. But I really don't think everyone should go out and kill politicians. There may be very little 'good politicians' but that doesn't mean they are also bad people that deserve to die without a process.
Also, it is not the state that descides to restrict guns. It is the people that descide and pass legislation through the state. If this isn't the case then the country is not democratic and people need to go on the street 24 hours. And that works. No state can survive continues 24 hour peaceful demostrations. That is why some of the dictactor states in east europe, ex-USSR countries, smash demonstrations. They are dangerous.

But when the government orders the army to shoot at the people then you have a right to fight back. But the soldiers are also people. Soldiers will switch side at some point. If not then the state is polarised in two instead of people vs government. And then you have a big problem with a good possibility of civil war. In that case you wreck the country in an attempt to gain a good negotiation position. After that is done you start the actual solution, the negotiations. I mean, a civil war does not decide a conflict. It merely tells one who is the strongest and who ought to win the negotiations. You can do away with this and start negotiations immediately if you are more wise.
Also, you can fight the government without firearms. You can use pitchforks against an army of armed men. Democrasy is not for cowardly people. Democrasy is not handed out for free.
Also, imagine what would happen when the army, either in Holland or the US, nails down thousands of angry people with pitchforks demonstrating in front of the parliamentary or other seat of government building?
Also, you can buy a treatese on guerrilla warfare either on line or in a nearby shop. The 9/11 terrorists didn't need any fire arms to kill 2,986 people. Neither do the people in the US or Holland when they decide to fight a guerrilla warfare against their government. Look at the riots in france. Not to say these things are good, but the people have plenty of options to protect themselves against their government after deciding it is better for people not to carry guns.
Speaking of France, they recently had succesful demonstrations.

Rather than calling for pro-gun laws. Maybe it would be more effective to build labour unions and other social movements. These help people organise against the government. There are the most effective. If the students in France decided to kill de villepin with a gun then things would have turned out very differently. Same if the black minorities of the ghetto's descided to assassinate Sarkozy.

What would have happened when the peace movent decided to shoot Nixon? They would have alienated the general population and the war in Vietnam would have lasted longer.

Really, using guns against your government will be a last resort. So it is weak to argue for guns in for example the US because rebuilding social movements will be much much more effective. This even ignoring the moral problems with killing politicians and the by-product of multiplied violence because many people are able to carry guns because of this.

[anekdote]

Your arguments are ridiculous prometheus.

Guns are used to shoot people. So they have no real usage. Shooting people is bad and almost always illegal.

Guns can also kill animals and hence they can be a provider of food. Guns can be used for sport, on ranges, etc. And besides, guns are just plain kick ass.

Only with a gun someone that turns crazy, which is really just impossible to prevent, can kill several people.

Or a bomb. Bombs are illegal but that doesn't seem to stop criminals.

If there is a fight, which is a lot more common, without any weapons people can often go wild without really serious injuries if there is some luck. Sure, you can kill someone with one blow to the head. But you can have a serious brawl without serious injuries.

Irrelevant.

If a person has a knife he can kill one and injure a few people. If someone goes on a frenzy killing with a knife she or he can suprise one person and kill that person. But with only a knife the other people can react, run away, jump on the person with the knife together, etc.

All you have proven is that knives are close-range weapons.

With a gun a crazy can go on and on killing people until the person is out of ammo or until the person encounters armed cops. Often the person wants to do a suicide by cop while killing as many beforehand.

Guess how cops stop people like this? Yep, with guns. The population should have access to guns, just for situations like this.

There is this one case of a scared female who descided to wear a gun. She ended up shooting her attackers to protect her purse. She apperently thought the gun would give her power. But her attackers were reckless or desperate enough to attack her anyway. She shot one in the shoulder. The other guy pulled him away. But he then returned. Then that person was shot in the belly.

Good for her. I applaud her for defending herself. I couldn't give a *** about the criminals. After all, they were trying to steal her purse. Oh sure, purse-snatching doesn't exactly justify execution, but how could she know their intentions? Self defense is self defense. One must not wait to find out the criminal's intentions. By then it may be too late.

I mean, what is the point of this. I rather lose my wallet than have to kill two people. I mean, it is not worth it at all. What did she think? And then she was also found guilty. Her weapon was illegal and of course the killing also went to far. But she just couldn't handle the situation. Since she already has life long for killing someone and seeing blood all over, looking into the eyes of her dying attacker her actual punishment was only the penalty of owning an illegal gun. But what did she achive? Did this turn out better than without a gun? I mean, they were after her money and not there to rape her or something. But in a case of rape, since I am not a female it is hard to tell me what is worse, to shoot two and kill one or to be raped. In any case she is a victim.

Do you carry a gun with you all the time just to protect your wallet?

As for burglars. Any good burglar knows that he has to be unarmed to do her or his job. If his victim wakes up she or he needs to get the heck out of there. Of course there are going to be exceptions. So why do you need a gun? Do you want to kill a fleeing burglar in your house? I mean, would you still want to live in the same place? Would you like the eat in the place where a human bled to death? I mean, human bodies have a lot of blood. People are often shocked at the amount of blood. Of course it depends on the actual wound. Gun shot wounds may also not bleed at all.

So you know for a fact that all "good burglars" know this and practice it?

Oh yeah, ALL good little burglars know not to take guns with them. After all, they COULD just run away!

Statistics contradict your assertion.

And then you can become the victim of your own weapon. Or a third person can become the victim. Especially with a gun.

Bad luck and/or stupidity. I could become the victim of my own steak-knife or pencil if I was inept enough. Where's the outrage?! Steak-knives and pencils should be banned!

Only 1,500 gun deaths occur each year in the US due to accident. And there are 80 million legal gun owners. Just for a comparison, doctors accidently kill 120,000 a year in the US. (US Gun Statistics)

So one is no safer with a gun. One may feel safe, people are irrational, but then when you are confronted with the fact that you aren't things may turn out very nasty and live serious scars on your soul.

Does it matter? You aren't safer with a car either.

As for the gun issue in the US. It was origionally put in the constitution so that the citizens could protect themselves against their government. But for the pro-guns people it is now a symbol of american style 'freedom'. I am not sure if this is called the freedom to torture yourself by killing you attacker.

Haha, that's new. "Torture yourself by killing your attacker." Ha!

"You know copper, I saved my life by shooting that potential murderer! But now I am so emotionally scarred that I wish he would have just killed me there!"

The lesser of two evils.

Also, the issue with the amount of homocides is not the amount of weapons or the weapon restrictions. Though weapons are that what makes cases like Colombine possible. It seems that utter fear is the cause of the violence in the US. I remember reading reviews at a review site for musical instruments and electric guitar equipment. Most of the reviews had a 'If it would be stolen I would buy it again...'-phrase. It really took me a long time to figure this out. I mean, why would it get stolen? Apperently this is on the surface of the american culture. It isn't that they really think it will get stolen. It is just a way to tell that they will buy make the same decision tomorrow.

Matches cause arson. Should matches be banned?

Everyone knows that politicians use fear to restraint the beast called the people. Actually that is how Alexander Hamilton. described the people; 'the great beast that must be tamed'. Actually, american history has some very silly examples. A recent one of course being Iraq destroying america while all Kuwaiti knew that Iraq couldn't even attack them. I mean, Iraq had no army to speak of whatsoever. Same with Grenada. I mean, Grenada attacking and defeating the US? Haha. But many people in the US were made to believe these two examples.

I seriously doubt that most politicians, and especially in democratic nations, consciously use fear as a restraint on the masses. When it does turn out the masses are fearful, it usually not the fault of the politician.

Same thing happens in other countries. When something like a terrorist attack happens governments know they have an oppertunity to restrict the people. Actually, it happens even after an earthquake. Such a disaster changes the general opinion and people expect something from the state. And the state knows it has an oppertunity to 'tame the beas'. Almost all countries, even western democracies, saw the oppertunity to pass 'anti-terrorism'-legislation, yes Orwellian terminology, to restrict civil rights.

Let me reiterate my point. When George Bush restricts American civil rights, it is mostly likely that he sincerely thinks this is good/required/necessary. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant in the matter.

Actually, I am probably a small minority in my country who has ever shot with a firearm. I used to be a member of a shooting range. I have never seen or heard about someone owning an illegal sidearm or something. I do not know where to get one. I do know that criminal people can get one in a few days. But in the country just south of mine you can just walk into a shop, but a weapon and leave. It only takes a couple of minutes. But they were already changing this.

Well that makes your whole argument pointless doesn't it. If criminals have the will to acquire a gun, they will acquire it. That is what the black market is for. I am all for limiting gun possession to only those with clean records. So why not allow ordinary citizens with clean records access to firearms?

Recently a depressed teenager wanted to commit suicide. In north-belgium, flemish part since belgium is really two countries in one, one out of three people votes of a racist party. So this kid descided to buy a gun, a hunting rifle, and do 'something good' before he died. He bought a gun and killed any foreigner he saw. He managed to kill an african aupair with a while baby, collateral damage I guess, and injured a turkish woman. Luckely for the other people around police was nearby and they managed to disable him by shooting him in the shoulder. Of course he asked to be killed.
This can never happen with illegal guns. I mean, you could get a weapon but it would take some time so one could change ones mind. This person could buy a weapon and kill people in one impulse.

You have a really naive understanding of a criminal mind. Sorry.

-----

Anyway, if I wanted to I could make a gun. When I was a kid, my friend and I built spud guns (potatoe cannons). These were composed of a PVC-pipe tube, with a blasting cap at one end and an open end at the other. It was fired by spraying something flammable inside such as hairspray, ramming a potatoe down the end and sparking the cap. The hairspray would ignite and send the potatoe shooting. This design could be very easily modified to make something lethal. Just from parts at a hardware store one could make an effective firearm. You should see all the homemade weapons which police confiscate from criminals. I went to a police station once and saw this exhibit. It was very impressive!

Besides this there is the issue of homemade bombs. Have you ever placed an aerosol can in fire? I have (It is great fun, but stand back!). The aerosol can explodes. Fragmentation bombs / pipe bombs can be made very easily, and they work the same way but they are lethal. There are also things like the Molotov cocktail which are easy to make.

In short, criminals are always one step ahead of the police. That is why they can exist and perpetrate crimes. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. Or alternatively, if you outlaw guns some other sort of weapon will become popular (such as homemade weapons).

[anekdote]

I think running away has been the most important through human history.

No, never. Running away is cowardice and forfeiture. And on a macro scale, nations who run away are weak and short-lived.

[ada]

We all know Americans hold their right to own and bear arms sacrosanct.
   
Here's the price they choose to pay:
   
In 2003 30,136 people were killed by guns in the US, according to the  CDC National Centre for Health Statistics. This is 30,000 IN ONE YEAR (compared to 2,700 in the twin towers attack.)

Eight children are killed in he US each day by guns. Not each year, EACH DAY .
   
Is is just me or do other people find these statistics MINDBOGGLING?

 You can get all philosophical about whether guns kill people or people kill people but you can't argue with the FACT that people with guns kill a lot more people than people without guns.

What's even more mindboggling, incomprehensible in fact, is that people will still argue against gun control in the face of this .
   
What part of these shameful figures does the pro gun lobby find so hard to understand?

Sure, people will still die at the hands of criminals and lunatics if you take away guns. But not so many! What's wrong with making it just a little tiny bit harder?

And if no one had a gun, you wouldn't need one to protect yourself against other crazy gun owners.
   
At the risk of offending, it has been suggested that if Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA and let the Americans keep doing it to themselves.
   
There are many things about Americans that are unfathomable to the rest of the world.

Their love affair with guns is one of them.

[musik_man]

I was just looking over the CDC (Center for Disease Control) website.  The breakdown for gun deaths in the US in 2003 was as follows
https://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Gun Deaths
Total   30,136
Homicide   11,920
Suicide   16,907
Accidents   730
Self Defense   347
Unknown   232

Suicides make up more than half of that figure.  You have a .01% of being accidently killed with a gun (although in reality gun owners would have a higher rate and non-owners a much lower rate.)  Total homicide was 17,732.  So about 2/3's were committed with guns.  Knives were responsible for about 2,000.  Your odds of being murdered by a gun are .2%.  As with the first figure, if you avoid certain behaviors (gangs/drug dealing etc) this falls considerably.  47,603 people died in car accidents.  Your odds for that are 1.2%.  Six times more likely than being shot.  (I did the percentages by multiplying the total deaths each year by average life expectancy and then dividing that by total population.  Not scientific or anything, but good enough for ballpark figures.)

Deaths 0-19yrs
Total 17,103
Homicide 2,979
Total(Gun) 2,849
Suicide(Gun)  810     
Homicide(Gun)  1,822
Car accident   8,025     
Poison  909

Deaths 0-17
Total  11,316
Total(Gun)  1,317     
Suicide(Gun)   377
Homicide(Gun)  805

Deaths 0-14
Total   6,734
Total(Gun)  380
Suicide(Gun)  74     
Homicide(Gun)  235

The 3,000 figure you gave was somewhat inflated.  First, it counts 19 year olds as children.  This inflates the numbers as many of the 14-19 deaths are either gang or drug related.  Second, it includes suicides.  Using the 0-14 non-suicide numbers, it's about 300 children killed by guns every year.  Less than one a day(and remember that this is in a population of 280 million.)  Since there are about 60 million kids between 0-14, this would put your odds at being murdered with a gun as a child at roughly .005% or one in twenty-thousand.  If you still think that that number is shocking, remember that many of them(I'd guess nearly all) would still be killed if guns were banned.  Either with illegal guns or by some other method (it's not like you need a powerful weapon to kill a child.)

Prometheus, banning guns would, in fact, make it harder to go on a Columbine style rampage, but those sort of shootings are so rare that it seems like a silly reason to ban an entire nation from guns.  You'd prevent maybe a couple dozen deaths a year in a nation of 290,000,000, while abridging the rights of the rest of the populace.

Using guns for defense against the government, is not some kooky fantasy.  The American Revolution could never have occured without an armed populace.  Neither could virtually any guerilla war.  And no one is advocating using violence to end minor disputes.  Of course the peace movement shouldn't have shot Nixon.  No one is arguing that they should have.  However, in places like Sudan, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe armed insurrection would have prevented much trouble and may have even halted genocide.  Protests and strikes can have a powerful effect on democracies, but they wouldn't do anything to your average dictatorship.  Tiannamen Square anyone...

BTW I find it funny that you view the drug war as futile, but think that a gun ban would actually work.

[zheer]

Sheesh those figures do look shocking, anyway dont know much about gun crimes ,however situation is starting to look bad in some places.
     

[prometheus]

Your arguments are ridiculous prometheus.

Really?

Guns can also kill animals and hence they can be a provider of food. Guns can be used for sport, on ranges, etc. And besides, guns are just plain kick ass.

We breed billions of animals in factoties each years. Every western country has many many many more animals living there bred to be eaten than humans. I bet every country has more domesticated animals. No gun is needed. Plus, killing animals is also bad. Less worse than killing humans of course. Of course killing for survival is acceptable. But I would prefer using spears of bows for that. That would be more natural.

Guns plainly kick ass? Well, I can not argue with that. I mean, an atom bomb explosion is utterly beautiful...

Or a bomb. Bombs are illegal but that doesn't seem to stop criminals.

I was not talking about criminals. I was talking about people that turn nut/suicidal.

Irrelevant.

Well, if you think it is irrelevant that a nut can kill one people with a knife and her or his whole school with a gun then what are we talking about anyway?

All you have proven is that knives are close-range weapons.

You don't think that makes any difference? Guns allow you to kill more and faster.

Guess how cops stop people like this? Yep, with guns. The population should have access to guns, just for situations like this.

You mean every one should carry a gun? Always? Actually. I am not even for cops carrying guns all the time. People aren't cops. Cops are trained, and I am not reffering to the fact that they are trained at shooting. What do you think the idea behind going armed on the streets anyway? Let's say I am going to buy some fresh bread in a minute and I take my gun with me? What will the idea behind that be? The idea will be that when I get attacked I can kill that person. The idea is that when there is someone else with a gun I can kill that person. When everyone has a gun everyone will be utterly scared of each other. Everyone knows everyone can kill them in the blink of an eye  if they do not pay attention. I wouldn't go out of my home if everyone had a gun. Even if the actual homocides stayed the same.
In the end statistics tell us that when fights start with guns they turn out worse.

Good for her. I applaud her for defending herself. I couldn't give a *** about the criminals. After all, they were trying to steal her purse. Oh sure, purse-snatching doesn't exactly justify execution, but how could she know their intentions? Self defense is self defense. One must not wait to find out the criminal's intentions. By then it may be too late.

Good for her? She will have nightmares every night. She didn't get punished for what she did in self defence, eventhough one could have makde a case for that. The judge, we have those wise people here, takes everything into consideration.

Do you carry a gun with you all the time just to protect your wallet?

Of course not. It is illegal here. I have never side a actual sidearm. I have only seen, and fired, rifles. Also, my wallet is almost empty most of the time. Plus, I do live in a very quiet area. I do go visit cities quite often, specially Amsterdam. When you go there you know you may be robbed without reasising it by a smart pick-pocket if you have bad luck. But a gun? No. Plus, I am big and strong. I am a really strong and fast running. I also have nerves of steel. If someone approached me with a gun I would not blink. I would ignore the gun altogether and maybe try and talk with the person. Unless it is clear the person is under influence of alcohol or drugs.

So you know for a fact that all "good burglars" know this and practice it?

Good burglars as in skillede burglars. Yes.

Oh yeah, ALL good little burglars know not to take guns with them. After all, they COULD just run away!

If you go there to kill people every night you will have to chance job after about a week.

Statistics contradict your assertion.

Prove it. Well, wait. You live in the US. The US is the exception in the world when it comes to guns.

Bad luck and/or stupidity. I could become the victim of my own steak-knife or pencil if I was inept enough. Where's the outrage?! Steak-knives and pencils should be banned!

Even when you are skilled with your steak knife it can still be dangerous. I am aware of every time I carry a knife, even a blunt one, that if I am reckless, careless or playful, I often jump and rum through the house, I could fall down and the knife could piece my chests by coincidence. But really, a steak-knife is used to cut. Well, to cut dead animals. Let's take a normal knife, one used to cut vegatables. Hmm, actually since I am a vegetarian I rarely have to use knifes anyway. Less chance to kill myself with a knife.

But in the end these knifes are not made to kill people. You also can't go on the street and kill 5 or 10 people with them.

Pencils? You mean the press?

Only 1,500 gun deaths occur each year in the US due to accident. And there are 80 million legal gun owners. Just for a comparison, doctors accidently kill 120,000 a year in the US. (US Gun Statistics)

So how many knife deaths and knifes are there in the US? And what about those pencils? We we comparing guns to other dangerous things. In that case we need to make a comparison. Otherwise these facts are irrelevant. I mean, otherwise your point would be that gun accidents don't damage US demographics.

Also, you do compare it with docters. How many lives do guns safe every year? Really, docters don't exist to kill people. If they did I would ban them too. It is not that there are accidents. It is that there is a tool that is made to kill.

Does it matter? You aren't safer with a car either.

That's why I do not own a car. Yes, it does matter. Because many people that carry a weapon do so because they feel unsafe.

Haha, that's new. "Torture yourself by killing your attacker." Ha!

You are cruel. Not everyone is as conscienceless as you are.

Potentional murderer? You have your facts wrong? I didn't say that the second person was killed while pulling the girls purse.

Anyway, this poor girl was afraid because she had once a knife put to her throught and her wallet stolen. She thought she was face with a gun. It turned out the other way around.

"You know copper, I saved my life by shooting that potential murderer! But now I am so emotionally scarred that I wish he would have just killed me there!"

Many cops get into mental problems after they kill criminals. Sometimes they end up killing themselves with their service weapon. In a few of these cases they decide to take partner and children with them.

The lesser of two evils.

It should be clear to you that I speak against evil always. If you think this is ridiculous, fine with me.

Matches cause arson. Should matches be banned?

In forests, yes.

Again, matches aren't made to kill people. If they were I would be for banning them. Also, you can't ban fire. I mean, if you ban guns you also ban bullets. You can't throw them. Well, you can but you get the point. Fire is just part of our world. We cannot remove fire. If it would be possible I would remove all big fires. But to say that makes no sense and is therefore stupid. So why do I need to say that to not be ridiculous?

I seriously doubt that most politicians, and especially in democratic nations, consciously use fear as a restraint on the masses. When it does turn out the masses are fearful, it usually not the fault of the politician.

They will be confronted with the inconvenience of the general population on a daily basis. Also, the interests of the politicians is not the same as that of the people in any representative democracy. Did you ever read a basic text on statecraft? Texts every politician has read?

Let me reiterate my point. When George Bush restricts American civil rights, it is mostly likely that he sincerely thinks this is good/required/necessary. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant in the matter.

It is because he needs the votes of the religious side of american society. There are elections comming. Why did Bush win the last elections? Because about so called christian ethics. That was made more important by the Bush campaign. I mean, if the election is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or about social issues for the below middle class people, Bush will utterly lose.
He probably does think that it is good but that is besides the point. Machiavelli teaches you how to hang on to power. You must not see power as a tool but at an end to itself. Bush probably wants to do a lot of things that are just impossible to do. But, gay marriage is an issue he both wants and which is good for his power base. If you know anything about politics you will realise that there are a lot of politicians that burn up their power for their ideals and they dissapear very quickly. Also, even when a career does last long, it often ends because a politician coverts his or her power into ideology.

Well that makes your whole argument pointless doesn't it. If criminals have the will to acquire a gun, they will acquire it. That is what the black market is for. I am all for limiting gun possession to only those with clean records. So why not allow ordinary citizens with clean records access to firearms?

You want to ban guns for criminals only? That makes even less sense than banning it for everyone. Like people said before, criminals will have the guns anyway. You just need to catch them. If you catch a criminal on the street with a gun you can do anything if guns aren't illegal. If they are you can catch him and compare his gun to the guns used to kill people. You can take fingerprints. Really, criminals will like legal guns a lot more than banned guns, eventhough they are able to get them anyway.

You have a really naive understanding of a criminal mind. Sorry.

So why don't you tell me about the criminal mind?

Anyway, if I wanted to I could make a gun. When I was a kid, my friend and I built spud guns (potatoe cannons). These were composed of a PVC-pipe tube, with a blasting cap at one end and an open end at the other. It was fired by spraying something flammable inside such as hairspray, ramming a potatoe down the end and sparking the cap. The hairspray would ignite and send the potatoe shooting. This design could be very easily modified to make something lethal. Just from parts at a hardware store one could make an effective firearm. You should see all the homemade weapons which police confiscate from criminals. I went to a police station once and saw this exhibit. It was very impressive!

We did something similar. It was quite dangerous. If I was my own parent I would have at least warned my children. Actually, we used a tube, strong firecrackers and a projectile. Of course this hasn't enough force to kill someone. But yes, it could be made into something more dangerous.

But I don't really see the point. I mean, you can make a huge bomb with fertilizer and petrol. That doesn't mean bombs don't ought to be banned.
 

Besides this there is the issue of homemade bombs. Have you ever placed an aerosol can in fire? I have (It is great fun, but stand back!). The aerosol can explodes. Fragmentation bombs / pipe bombs can be made very easily, and they work the same way but they are lethal. There are also things like the Molotov cocktail which are easy to make.

I actually mentioned this in my people vs state thing but without giving these details.

In short, criminals are always one step ahead of the police. That is why they can exist and perpetrate crimes. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. Or alternatively, if you outlaw guns some other sort of weapon will become popular (such as homemade weapons).

Outlaws and the cops. So banning guns does not chance the criminals vs cops one bit.

[lisztisforkids]

Last I heard, cars kill 40,000 people every year in the united states. Hell, forget about guns, cars are whats dangerous.

  By the statisitcs posted a while ago, out of the 30,000 people that dies from guns, 10,000 are from homicide. Now the only people that commit Homicide are criminals, and we all understand that criminals will get guns. Right?

 16,000 deaths are from suicide, if the person dident use a gun, that person would have killed his/herself some other way. banning guns dose not help here either.

 337 are from self defense.

 And the other 700 are from accident. Banning guns does not help here either, what helps is proper training.

 So what you are advocaing for is about 1,000 deaths atributed each year to guns by self defense and accident.  And obviusly self defense is why people have guns, so we shouldent bring that into the argument. And as I said before accidents can be prevented.

  If you really want to end gun violence, banning guns will do nothing but disarm the public. We need to change are culture and reduce crime....

[prometheus]

Last I heard, cars kill 40,000 people every year in the united states. Hell, forget about guns, cars are whats dangerous.

What about comparing cars against terrorism? I mean, the chance that you die because of a asteroid hitting the earth is bigger than getting killed by terrorists. And also the air pollution of the cars kill more people than guns and terrorists, at least in my country.

I am not pro-car though I am not for banning cars since they are created to transport people, not to kill them.

So what you are advocaing for is about 1,000 deaths atributed each year to guns by self defense and accident.

Please reread my posts, but this time a bit more carefully.

[lisztisforkids]

Please reread my posts, but this time a bit more carefully.

 I am very possibly the most lazy person on this forum, and maybe the planet earth. But, its my loss.

[pianolearner]

Now the only people that commit Homicide are criminals, and we all understand that criminals will get guns. Right?

This is (almost) completely wrong.

[lisztisforkids]

This is (almost) completely wrong.

  When a homicide is commited, that person is a criminal.... Almost all homicides are comitted by people that are already criminals.... If guns are outlawed, than guns will just go underground, like drugs, or probaly more like prohintiom of alcohol in the 1920's.

[chriskarma]

New York City, where I was raised ,has plenty of guns, only criminals and police may carry them and I was held up twice by thugs.

When I was young I didn't mind not having a gun even though NY was dangerous because I could fight, but now I am an old man and I refuse to find out if the next mugger just wants my wallet or is planning on stabbing me, having been stabbed I can assure you it is very painful and scary.

the stats claiming 8 dead children a day (by gun use) is misleading, if a 19 year old nutter with a shotgun is killed by a cop in a gun fight the nutter gets registered as a "child" killed by a gun!

the truth is young children are in a lot more danger of drowning and car accidents then by gun accidents.

law abiding citizens never even know I have a .357 revolver hidden on me, if need be it will be the last thing any attacker see's.

guns are simple easy to use tools, it is much easier to learn to shoot then read scores and play at the same time!

I carry a gun everyday and it is my right to do so, if any person or gov't wants to take my gun away I say..."Molon Labe".

I allready know I won't change your mind but I urge you not to encourage any more simple minded "bans"  The Nazi's used bans to achieve their ends and that is the hidden agenda of the disarmament movement.

peace!

[lisztisforkids]

I allready know I won't change your mind but I urge you not to encourage any more simple minded "bans"  The Nazi's used bans to achieve their ends and that is the hidden agenda of the disarmament movement.

peace!

 

  Indeed. 

"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."
 

[pianistimo]

if everyone was responsible with their guns, it would be a good society.  but, why do we have so much violence in the media and in gaming.  it promotes those 19 year old 'nutters' who are basically giving up on school or life and wanting someone else to shoot them after  they shoot others sometimes.  take for instance, columbine.  i know it is a very trite kind of 'well society shouldn't let 19 year olds have guns' - but that is not really what i'm saying.  its just that so many people died because two boys couldn't control their anger.  they lashed out in the only way they felt they had power.

now, a thirty year or plus old person will have more self-control (maybe? if they are not schizo or something).  these type of people - imo - back up what the police are doing.  they are not going behind the police's back - but if people were suddenly shot at right and left and they were first on the scene...they might be able to do something about it.  we shouldn't give terrorists all the power (and, yes, they can do a lot of damage in a very short time if given the opportunity).

so - we have two very different kinds of uses for guns.  one for anger.  one for protecting society from crime or terrorists from some kind of empowerment (thinking no one else has a gun).  i would like to have a few neighbors that actually posessed guns for that very reason.

guns are used also, as a sort of warning.  u see one on someone's belt (as with police) and u respect their right to use it properly.  but, sometimes they are used improperly and that is very sad.  i think that the public has a right to complain if someone is improperly detained or improperly searched or improperly threatened.  police have a very hard problem determining if someone has a weapon or not until they DO search them.  but, perhaps they should also take into account that there are many more police usually surrounding a suspect and that shooting them from all angles or whatever - isn't really necessary to subdue them.  of course, i don't think the police do this all the time - or even half the time - and i feel for them when they are encountering people on drugs.    it's just a tough situation.

imo, a perfect society would solve problems before they become HUGE issues.  whether teenagers, races,  police activity, governmental... and i think the issue is talking about anger management and how to properly use guns.  what ages they should be available.  parental locks.  and, things like this.

[musik_man]

What about comparing cars against terrorism? I mean, the chance that you die because of a asteroid hitting the earth is bigger than getting killed by terrorists. And also the air pollution of the cars kill more people than guns and terrorists, at least in my country.

I am not pro-car though I am not for banning cars since they are created to transport people, not to kill them.

Actually since no one has died from an asteroid impact, your odds are better for terrorism.

[gyzzzmo]

Legallizing=easier to get=more guns=more accidents
The more guns also means they become cheaper.

[nicco]

"Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore.

Watch it.

[lisztisforkids]

"Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore.

Watch it.

 I have watched it several times. That movie to me just exemplefied American gun culture. Its the culutre, not the guns that kill people.

 
   "If guns kill people, than silverware makes you fat"

[prometheus]

  When a homicide is commited, that person is a criminal.... Almost all homicides are comitted by people that are already criminals.... If guns are outlawed, than guns will just go underground, like drugs, or probaly more like prohintiom of alcohol in the 1920's.

Most homocides are normal people killing someone they know. If you want to call them criminals, fine. But that is not their profession. As I said, when a criminal commits homocide it is often to kill another criminal; think of organised crime.

Very important; normal people commit most of the murders. Not professional criminals. And then you call my views of the criminal mind naive.


When everyone carries a weapon every fight, and there are a lot of fights and brawls each weekend, will end in a homocide. I mean, people get into fights without being criminals. Sure, both guys may thing that other person is a thug or scum or a criminal, but that is not very important. If we have a knife then the fight will be a knife fight. If we have a gun then there will be a shooting. Guns and knifes do not prevent people from having fights. They will go at each other anyway. Force multiplier.

Actually since no one has died from an asteroid impact, your odds are better for terrorism.

A lot have died from astroid impacts. A huge majority of them weren't humanoids, though.
But I am not talking about statistics of the past but estimates. Also, I am talking about people in the western countries, not those in Iraq or Afghanistan, to clarify.


About the 'guns do not kill people' thing. Guns can do only one thing, kill people. If you give someone a gun you also give him the right to kill someone. And that is just wrong.

[chriskarma]

I've seen it a few times, have you seen
Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the will" ?
Thats another "documentary"! 

Thats the problem with many gun "control"
folks, they are so used to being controlled
that new thoughts and open minded disscussion
is very confusing for them.

Bowling For Columbine  is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

https://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Gun control minus gun equals control

The whole debate was never really about safety it was about having control
over the unwashed masses, many public advocates for "control" have no problem with having
armed security agents keeping them safe. (Like film maker M. Moore)

I hereby promise to give up my guns if you pay for 24 hour seven days a week armed protection for me!

[musik_man]

Legallizing=easier to get=more guns=more accidents
The more guns also means they become cheaper.

But there are only about 1,000 accidental deaths from guns each year.  Should we ban skydiving or bungee jumping because accidents happen?

Prometheus, do you think banning guns will keep people from killing people they know?  As I said earlier, you're right that it makes a Columbine scenario more difficult(not that that matters since those scenarios are so rare), but I can't see how it'll make it anymore difficult for an angry man to kill his wife.

BTW Michael Moore is being sued for $80 million by a double amputee military veteran.  Footage of him was used in Fahrenheit 9/11 without his consent to make him appear anti-war.  I hope the guy takes every last penny from Moore.  I can honestly think of no one on either side of the political aisle that even gets near Moore for dishonesty.  The guy is an utter hack.

[anekdote]

Everyone knows that politicians use fear to restraint the beast called the people. Actually that is how Alexander Hamilton. described the people; 'the great beast that must be tamed'. Actually, american history has some very silly examples. A recent one of course being Iraq destroying america while all Kuwaiti knew that Iraq couldn't even attack them. I mean, Iraq had no army to speak of whatsoever. Same with Grenada. I mean, Grenada attacking and defeating the US? Haha. But many people in the US were made to believe these two examples.

Same thing happens in other countries. When something like a terrorist attack happens governments know they have an oppertunity to restrict the people. Actually, it happens even after an earthquake. Such a disaster changes the general opinion and people expect something from the state. And the state knows it has an oppertunity to 'tame the beas'. Almost all countries, even western democracies, saw the oppertunity to pass 'anti-terrorism'-legislation, yes Orwellian terminology, to restrict civil rights.

For someone who says they are against the restriction of civil liberties, use of fear tactics, and the state, you certainly contradict your ideals many times. You seem to advocate a strong centralized socialist type of government. You favor heavy restrictions, gun control being only one of many I presume. You seem very fearful. Fearful of "things" in particular moreso than people (cars, guns, meat, etc.). This probably reflects a fundamental belief in the good of man. You think you can "tame" man by taking "bad" things away from him. Man is not evil on his own accord, "things" and "ideas" make him evil (and thus, you probably favor rehabilitation over punishment). You expect the state to serve the people, not vice versa (and this is a very important point, so read it again). Obviously it is difficult to extrapolate someone's political ideology only from a few posts, but I don't think I'm far off.

You have a rosy view of the world. You seem to think that if guns are outlawed, crime will go down and society will be better off.

Don't get me wrong, you are a genuinely intelligent and compassionate man, but you seriously need to rethink your politics. A government under your control (in my opinion) would be oppressive. It would have the intention of "taming the beast." It would use fear. It would be undemocratic.

Who was it that said the most informed are often the most propagandized? Jacques Ellul?

Now I'm going to go off an a tangent here, but similar views are typical in our post-Western civilization. We have been at the top for so long that we wallow in our own stagnation. We wallow in our own idleness and leisure (we argue petty matters while what we had as a society crumbles around us). We are fearful and weak. The natural paradigm from which nations are formed and shaped no longer applies to us. We are directionless. We live among our own detritus. With the more increasing artificiality comes the more instability. But it is too late.

Also, it is not the state that descides to restrict guns. It is the people that descide and pass legislation through the state. If this isn't the case then the country is not democratic and people need to go on the street 24 hours. And that works. No state can survive continues 24 hour peaceful demostrations. That is why some of the dictactor states in east europe, ex-USSR countries, smash demonstrations. They are dangerous.

In a democratic nation, the people are the state. Hence, gun restriction is mandated by the state (e.g., the people) and the state does represses the people (e.g., the state). A democratic state is a reflection of its people. An oppressive state is one which molds its people as it sees fit. And if the people do not control the state, then there is no democracy.

Are democracy and oppression fundamentally incompatible? It is hard to say. A people may unintentionally repress themselves. Or maybe it is that a people become corrupt enough to welcome a despot. As Benjamin Franklin (a very wise man) poignantly noted, all democratic nations eventually resort to despotism.

     “I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of
     government but what may be a blessing to the people if it is well
     administered; and believe farther that this is likely to be well
     administered for a course of years and can only end in despotism, as
     other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so
     corrupt as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. . .”

But when the government orders the army to shoot at the people then you have a right to fight back. But the soldiers are also people. Soldiers will switch side at some point. If not then the state is polarised in two instead of people vs government. And then you have a big problem with a good possibility of civil war. In that case you wreck the country in an attempt to gain a good negotiation position. After that is done you start the actual solution, the negotiations. I mean, a civil war does not decide a conflict. It merely tells one who is the strongest and who ought to win the negotiations. You can do away with this and start negotiations immediately if you are more wise.

But how can people fight their government without weapons (guns especially)? I will bring this up again next.

Also, you can fight the government without firearms. You can use pitchforks against an army of armed men.
Also, imagine what would happen when the army, either in Holland or the US, nails down thousands of angry people with pitchforks demonstrating in front of the parliamentary or other seat of government building?

Also, you can buy a treatese on guerrilla warfare either on line or in a nearby shop. The 9/11 terrorists didn't need any fire arms to kill 2,986 people. Neither do the people in the US or Holland when they decide to fight a guerrilla warfare against their government. Look at the riots in france. Not to say these things are good, but the people have plenty of options to protect themselves against their government after deciding it is better for people not to carry guns.

Yes, you CAN fight the government without firearms. But it is much more difficult. As you said, it is nearly impossible unless you resort to guerrilla warfare. But why should the citizens have to resort to guerrilla warfare? If a government is democratic and non-repressive, it would not outlaw weapons! The outlawing of weapons is a very common practice among oppressive nations. Why should we begin?

Oh. I understand your intentions. You mean to "tame the beast." We outlaw weapons, but we justify this move by pointing out how crime will be reduced (fear tactics). Then, when the citizens are disarmed, we enslave them! What fun! (Now you understand me when I say that the "taming of the beast" is an unconscious process! You may not intent to enslave the people, but in fact you do.)

Democrasy is not for cowardly people. Democrasy is not handed out for free.

If democracy is not for cowardly people, then why do you say running away is the most important? In past posts you advocate cowardice! Let the criminal take your wallet! Turn the other cheek! After all, materials and prosperity can be regained. Life cannot.

[prometheus]

For someone who says they are against the restriction of civil liberties, use of fear tactics, and the state, you certainly contradict your ideals many times.

How so? I do need to think guns are good and fun things when I am pro civil liberties?

You seem to advocate a strong centralized socialist type of government.

I am not. I am just speaking against guns. I never said that I want a strong social government to take away everyones gun, though this is what post people will assume when one is against guns. I think a society without gun will be better than one with. And I am making a case for this. That's all. I am not proposing any laws or systems.

You favor heavy restrictions, gun control being only one of many I presume. You seem very fearful. Fearful of "things" in particular moreso than people (cars, guns, meat, etc.).

You think I want to ban cars and meat? Hahaha...

Obviously it is difficult to extrapolate someone's political ideology only from a few posts, but I don't think I'm far off.

I would be a libertarian socialist.

You have a rosy view of the world. You seem to think that if guns are outlawed, crime will go down and society will be better off.

I didn't say crime will go down. I said that with guns harmless incidents will turn into homocides. I just think that allowing people to have guns equals them allowing to use them and thus allowing them to kill people. So, if you have a state then I think the people should favor their state banning/restricting guns for them.

A government under your control (in my opinion) would be oppressive. It would have the intention of "taming the beast." It would use fear. It would be undemocratic.

If a government was under my contral I would abolish it. Like I said before, though I do think that the less guns the better I never talked about how to do this. Furthermore, if the majority of the people want guns to be legal as a politician I shouldn't make a law against it. But in think that in the US and in Belgium, which got drug restrictions as of yesterday, do have a majority for banning guns. So what is so undemocratic about it?
Furthermore, gun control would probably be very low on my priority list. It is not that big an issue.

As you said, it is nearly impossible unless you resort to guerrilla warfare.

There can't be any war if it is just the government vs the people.

But why should the citizens have to resort to guerrilla warfare?

Because they don't have an army. Even if you have guns. You can only assassinate a politician. If you want to fight the governmental army you will need an army as well.

If a government is democratic and non-repressive, it would not outlaw weapons!

It is false that a democratic non-repressive state would not ban anything at all. They would ban guns, and other very deadly weapons, because the people would prefer that people do not have guns.

The outlawing of weapons is a very common practice among oppressive nations. Why should we begin?

Do you really want to look at the states with the most and the least guns per head of population?

Oh. I understand your intentions. You mean to "tame the beast." We outlaw weapons, but we justify this move by pointing out how crime will be reduced (fear tactics). Then, when the citizens are disarmed, we enslave them! What fun! (Now you understand me when I say that the "taming of the beast" is an unconscious process! You may not intent to enslave the people, but in fact you do.)

Because I have an opinion you disagree with I enslave the people? It seems you are really sugar coating everyone you say, but weren't you that racist guy?

If democracy is not for cowardly people, then why do you say running away is the most important? In past posts you advocate cowardice! Let the criminal take your wallet! Turn the other cheek! After all, materials and prosperity can be regained. Life cannot.

What has a wallet to do with democracy? For this to make sence I would have had to say "Rich people aren't cowards" or "Dead people aren't cowards.". First off, I was talking about human evolution. Not about human society.
Second, it is easy to see why one should not stand up for ones wallet but should stand up for his civil rights.
There is a big difference between a criminal drug addict and a criminal state. I mean, it is not hard to see which one has the most power and is thus the most dangerous.

[musik_man]

Libertarian Socialist is a contradiction in terms.

[gyzzzmo]

But there are only about 1,000 accidental deaths from guns each year.  Should we ban skydiving or bungee jumping because accidents happen?

Prometheus, do you think banning guns will keep people from killing people they know?  As I said earlier, you're right that it makes a Columbine scenario more difficult(not that that matters since those scenarios are so rare), but I can't see how it'll make it anymore difficult for an angry man to kill his wife.

BTW Michael Moore is being sued for $80 million by a double amputee military veteran.  Footage of him was used in Fahrenheit 9/11 without his consent to make him appear anti-war.  I hope the guy takes every last penny from Moore.  I can honestly think of no one on either side of the political aisle that even gets near Moore for dishonesty.  The guy is an utter hack.

Dont you think theres quite a difference between skydiving and bungeejumping (killing yourself) and accidents with weapons (killing other people)?

And i think shooting someone is alot easier than stabbing someone.

[timothy42b]

Most homocides are normal people killing someone they know. If you want to call them criminals, fine. But that is not their profession. As I said, when a criminal commits homocide it is often to kill another criminal; think of organised crime.

Very important; normal people commit most of the murders. Not professional criminals. And then you call my views of the criminal mind naive.

Your saying that does not make it true.  In fact, if you check the statistics you will find it to be quite false.

I use this as a preamble to dip my toe into this debate. 

The decisions about gun control are based solely on feel-good emotion.  Any attempt to do it rationally would result in far different choices.  This is personally difficult for me, because as an engineer (meaning a good part of my world view is wrapped up in tool using) a gun is just a tool, neither inherently evil nor righteous in itself. 

The world seems to divide into a small group of fanatics who think gun ownership can save them from abusive govt.  Sorry, govts have nukes.  Doesn't matter what size handgun you buy, you can't compete.  And then there's a large group of fuzzy thinkers who are unable to think of people as being evil, and need to use an inanimate object as a scapegoat.  If we just get rid of guns Johnny will give up armed robbery and play the organ in church.  Nope, that doesn't work either.  The real solutions are unfortunately much more difficult and much less clear. 

I propose a dichotomy of approaches toward freedom.  Either an individual must be allowed ALL rights except for those society removes only after compelling demonstration of necessity, or individuals have NO rights except what society grants after the individual demonstrates a compelling need.  The gun control advocates all fall into camp two.  I am a proponent of camp 1.  There is no compelling demonstration that guns in the hands of honest responsible citizens poses any threat whatsoever to society.  Thus it would be not possible to ban that type of ownership in a  perfect world.  "Well, if honest people are allowed to have guns, then criminals will be able to get them too."  Sorry, faulty logic, and even if true would not be a compelling reason.  The fact seems to be that all restrictions on guns apply only to honest people.

I'll give you an example.  Australia.  After ONE tragic shooting incident, an emotion and unreasoned response was to ban guns.  Result:  Australia no longer has an Olympic shooting team.  Were they a threat?  Apparently so, because people feel much safer, even though not one gun has been removed from the hands of criminals. 

[timothy42b]

Whoops, forgot one thing.

You have to be careful about using US data for your arguments, because it is skewed two different ways.

First, although crime is not anywhere near as bad as people perceive, there is some truth to the US being fairly violent by nature.  Without guns, knives, and clubs, you'd still have more strangulation murders than some countries combined rate.  (and less than others.  there are places with 3 times the US rate, too) 

Second, the US is far more responsible about gun ownership than any other nation.  This accounts for the overly sensitive reaction of the Europeans, for example.  The US has an enormous number of guns in circulation.  Yet the murder rate per gun is a small fraction of the murder rate per gun in any other civilized country.  (and far below that of third world countries, obviously) 

[pianolearner]

The first time I ever fired a real gun was when I was on a holiday in the USA. It was at a gun shop in Las Vegas. I was astonished at the array of weapons available for sale and frankly I couldn’t find how anyone could justify a real need for most of them. I chose an UZI 9mm which is an automatic mini sub-machine gun capable of firing 1200 rounds/minute. It took the shop owner only 5minutes to show me how to operate it. I emptied two 25 round magazines quite accurately in less than a blink of an eye. It was effortless with almost no noticeable recoil. When I walked out of the gun shop the thought that there may be people around me who own a weapon like that made me feel very uneasy.

I know there are many responsible, law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and target shooting and I can also see how people can justify owning a gun for home/self defence. But there is NO WAY anyone can justify the need for owning an assault rifle/gun such as the UZI 9mm, AK47, M16 etc. These guns are designed for only one purpose and that is to quickly and efficiently kill people in large numbers.