Get Yer Guns.

[Shuuda]

Exactly. In more peaceful countries, most people don't even have guns. Yet people don't seem to be killed as often.

What do you mean by a peaceful country? Give a proper example please. You must also take into account the population and wealth of that country.

Besides, if guns are banned, they're not going to turn into knives. Can a knife be shot out of a building window and kill someone? No. Can a person with a knife rob a bank? No. Can someone with a knife shoot it through a house or car window and kill someone inside? No. Can a knife travel so fast, that nobody can dodge it? No. Can a gun? Yes.

Erm... yes they will: like I said before, knife crimes are common as well. Do knives require ammunition? No. Do knives jam up? Well, maybe they jam in the corpse, but they still did the job. Are knives louder than guns? No. Can a gunman kill someone silently? Not often. Are knives easier to hide? Yes.

If guns get ban, people will just move on to the next most efficient way of killing a man. Like I said before: Guns are not the source of violence, it is the people.

Here in Britain:

Unlike in the United States, there is practically no modern organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom, and little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership advocates. These two situations create what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world.

But plenty of people still get stabbed and beaten to death.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Shuuda

[Esau of Isaac]

So, if guns are banned, people who don't have guns will be harmed?

Moreso than they would be without sufficient weaponry to defend themselves, yes.

And if guns stop getting sold, people are going to have to try and smuggle them. Banning guns isn't going to harm anyone any more than if they were legal.

Of course it will. If I do not have the proper means to defend myself against a criminal that does have the proper means to kill me, the fact stands that I am in greater danger of dying. If I have nothing and the criminal has a gun, I'm in deep shit. But if I have a gun as well, the situation is far closer to being equal.

What does the bullet do? It kills someone. What does a person do? They send the bullet. If a general tells someone to kill an enemy, who killed the enemy? The general or the soldeir? Obvious the soldeir, because the general didn't even go near the enemy. Now replace "general" with person and "soldeir" with bullet. Guns are not "evil" and don't think, but the gun is what kills, not the person. The person just gives the order.

Which is all that matters. The person is the one that sets into motion the cause of another's death. Were the soldier not a living and breathing being, your comparison would be apt; but it's not.

Consider that I can easily set a domino situation into effect that ends with dropping a piano on your head. But when it comes down to catching the murderer, they are indeed not looking for the piano; they're looking for the person that dropped the piano, me, because I am the one that caused your death. The piano would not have on its own sought to kill you, and likewise, a firearm won't intrinsically decide to kill people. It's only in the hands of the wrong person that the weapon will spill innocent blood.

Again, if you ban guns, every gun incident won't turn into a knife incident >_>

But a wide variety of them would. When guns were banned in the UK, knife crime went up several fold; it didn't solve the problem at all, it just slightly altered the means of crime.

Plus, if the police have guns and most criminals don't, who wins?

And again, do you honestly believe that the police force is somehow everywhere at once? And in many cases, the police force has been disarmed as well.

Take power away from the criminals and not the police, and violence goes down. And guns can do much more than knives can, so yes, violence will go down, especially since knives are already available.

I'd rather defend myself than give my power away to the state. What is the use, unless you for whatever reason believe that the amount of people that would kill with guns outweighs the number that are used in crime (which is an utterly moronic position, before you get your hopes up).

Why not then ban knives too? You already banned guns, so you should go the extra mile.

No, but banning them makes it harder to get a hold of, for criminials and normal pteople.

Correction; it makes it impossible for a law-abiding citizen to obtain, and mildly more difficult for a criminal to obtain.

The point is to remove guns from the nutcases, so that they can't use the gun as a killing tool. So how do you know who's a nutcase and who's not? You can't, so just remove all the guns. That said, you could argue then that removing all the guns affects the non-nutcases. However, the non-nutcases would have no need for a gun if the nutcases didn't have one either. Unless they become a nutcase themself See my point with the <<<<<< in it, which you forgot to address.

I addressed it fine. If people have a functioning brain and a manner with which to handle weapons properly, then they will defend themselves from threat in a satisfactory fashion, and being in a greater number than the nutcases, they'll come out with less fatalities. Notice that the areas that are the easiest to obtain guns often have incredibly low crime rates. Because the ones that intend to harm others are in the minority.

See my note about Kitty Genovese's stabbing

This has nothing to do with banning guns.

From what area? You'd have to smuggle it in, which has a chance of getting caught and prematurely get labeled "nutcase" and thrown into jail. Only if guns were illegal though. By not making them illegal, you have missed out on the chance of catching them before they start shooting.

In areas where guns have been banned, gun crime hasn't suddenly evaporated. It's gone down, but this doesn't change that criminals still exist, and they still manage to kill people. And now you've removed the best way for a man or woman to defend themselves.

Stereotype alert. If an ambulance can reach a person having a heart attack quickly enough to save him, the police can reach most crimes before it's too late, provided someone witnesses the event and calls them. Which is the case for most crimes involving guns, other than random shootings by first time criminals, who wouldn't be able to get the gun in the first place if they wren't so readily available.

If I'm robbing you with a gun, the crime is over in seconds. Arguing that an ambulance can reach a person having a heart attack --who obviously stays in one location-- is entirely different to me waving a gun in your face, stealing your money, and then running away, on foot or in a car.

The police are not able to respond to everything, and removing guns isn't going to make crime disappear.

Yes it does. If you want to read the theory behind it, it's in Hobbes' Leviathan. Good read, though he's a tad long winded at times. In all seriousness though, the government should not be something we don't know. We ELECTED them.

Inconsequential. You're unnecessarily handing over control to something that doesn't need that much control. The government has shown that if it is given power, it will abuse it. Giving it more than is absolutely necessary is a big fucking mistake, and removing guns just so that you can try and rely on police, when people can easily police themselves, is borderline retarded.

How can you be sure that the ones you train won't become the nutjob that goes on a random killing spree?

Why would it matter, unless you're arguing that the entire population will become nutcases?

Millions of civilians + proper gun safety + police > Millions of unarmed civilians + police

How about this situation? Criminal walks into the bank, grabs a hostage, sticks their gun against their head and demands money and hands up. What are you going to do?

If everyone has a gun? Shoot him repeatedly.

And what of the situation when he does the same exact thing when guns are banned, but with a knife? What did you change other than the entire bank being armed properly and being able to ensure him that if he harms that woman, his life is forfeit?

[Nightgraves]

I come from a country where there's not a culture of weapons (and currently live in one where's the same deal), so I find hard to understand how having guns make you free.

Same here. Over here I just know a couple of people that own a gun, but overall is not something you'll buy if it isn't work related (police, security, the sort).

I don't see the point of having a weapon. If you are afraid of things so as to buy a gun is ridiculous. Guns don't give you freedom nor assured security, just a perceived sense of security.

Some posts here go along the lines of "the weak will be in an unfair advantage". Well, there are police for given circunstances. For tight situations, run- I doubt the criminal will have video game accuracy throwing a knive. Also, there are some places were you can learn self-defense...

And anyways, do you always go like "omg someone will attack me!" whenever you go out? It isn't a positive way to see life.

[Destiny Hero]

Okay, I'm abandoning this thread because some people don't get. Read Knife's post.

Not only are guns seldom used in self-defense, but they're aren't that great for it, either. Life isn't like Fire Emblem, where you'd get shot, and then you'd shoot back. The power is in the first shot, and when you're shot, your gun isn't going to protect you, and you aren't going to be able to shoot back.

Yes, knives will be used more. But they are much less efficient than guns are, and they are MUCH easier to defend against.

[canas is back]

Okay, I'm abandoning this thread because some people don't get. Read Knife's post.

Not only are guns seldom used in self-defense, but they're aren't that great for it, either. Life isn't like Fire Emblem, where you'd get shot, and then you'd shoot back. The power is in the first shot, and when you're shot, your gun isn't going to protect you, and you aren't going to be able to shoot back.

Yes, knives will be used more. But they are much less efficient than guns are, and they are MUCH easier to defend against.

biggest problem in nonlethal weapons is that you can get sued if the criminal is smart enough, I have seen many cases where a robber sued thier victim because they caused them harm inside the victims house, so sometimes it is better to kill than to wound.

[borkborkbork]

It seems that all it boils down to is: People that want guns don't trust anyone else. They pessimisticly think law enforcement is a joke, their governments are out to kill them and that only a gun can protect you from that. They'll dogmatically stick to that view, disregarding any evidence. Well, I'll go through the rebuttals anyway, but bear in mind 2 things:

1) Your gun means shit all for defence, unless you don't care about hostages.

2) Preventing the crime from happening is better than stopping a crime in process. Conversely, getting out of a crime with all lives intact first, and then bringing down justice is better than dispensing justice at he risk of someone's life.

Moreso than they would be without sufficient weaponry to defend themselves, yes.

Now I wonder when the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia was...

Of course it will. If I do not have the proper means to defend myself against a criminal that does have the proper means to kill me, the fact stands that I am in greater danger of dying. If I have nothing and the criminal has a gun, I'm in deep shit. But if I have a gun as well, the situation is far closer to being equal.

No, it wouldn't be. You don't know he's a criminal, so he has the advantage. Your gun means shit all if his is pointed at you while yours is in your holster. The only time you'd have a chance to draw it is if it's not pointed at you, in which case he has a hostage and he'll either force you to drop the gun, or you'll get an innocent killed.

But a wide variety of them would. When guns were banned in the UK, knife crime went up several fold; it didn't solve the problem at all, it just slightly altered the means of crime.

Show proof of that, or it didn't happen. And even then it'd have to show that the number of successful knife + gun crimes went up. A knife takes longer to kill, so i doubt this was the case. See the case of Kitty Genovese.

And again, do you honestly believe that the police force is somehow everywhere at once? And in many cases, the police force has been disarmed as well.

No, but they know how to track criminals. As for disarmament of police...proof or it didn't happen. In anything, they're getting more weapons these days - tasers and what not.

I'd rather defend myself than give my power away to the state. What is the use, unless you for whatever reason believe that the amount of people that would kill with guns outweighs the number that are used in crime (which is an utterly moronic position, before you get your hopes up).

In any case where the gun was not used to immediately kill, the criminal intends to take something and run. The State has detectives for this line of work.

Why not then ban knives too? You already banned guns, so you should go the extra mile.

I'd like to see you eat STEAK with a GUN and fork.

Correction; it makes it impossible for a law-abiding citizen to obtain, and mildly more difficult for a criminal to obtain.

I addressed it fine. If people have a functioning brain and a manner with which to handle weapons properly, then they will defend themselves from threat in a satisfactory fashion, and being in a greater number than the nutcases, they'll come out with less fatalities. Notice that the areas that are the easiest to obtain guns often have incredibly low crime rates. Because the ones that intend to harm others are in the minority.

Unless you can find proof that isn't one American city vs another, I highly doubt that correlation of crime rate:gun availablity is true. You hypothetical situation never seems to take into account hostages - unless you assume the hostage is dead anyway.

This has nothing to do with banning guns.

Only because you took it out of context. Some people are suggestign that knives can kill as quickly as a gun. Here we have a man strong enough to overpower prison guards and flee, with a knife, taking over 30 minutes to kill a woman. Quick.

In areas where guns have been banned, gun crime hasn't suddenly evaporated. It's gone down, but this doesn't change that criminals still exist, and they still manage to kill people. And now you've removed the best way for a man or woman to defend themselves.

Well, at least you admit gun crimes rates have gone down. Next step is to ask why. Criminals can always kill people. You can do it with your bare hands if you knew how. But sucessful murders must have also dropped when guns were banned. Crime rate mate have stayed the same, but the amount of people escaping with their lives is more important.

If I'm robbing you with a gun, the crime is over in seconds. Arguing that an ambulance can reach a person having a heart attack --who obviously stays in one location-- is entirely different to me waving a gun in your face, stealing your money, and then running away, on foot or in a car.

If you rob one guy with a gun, you're a petty criminal and will let the guy live. Robbing a bank takes longer. Either way, there are enough CCTV cameras around to catch a criminal, as will there be fingerprints and all sorta of other details a detective can use to trace the criminal.

Inconsequential. You're unnecessarily handing over control to something that doesn't need that much control. The government has shown that if it is given power, it will abuse it. Giving it more than is absolutely necessary is a big fucking mistake, and removing guns just so that you can try and rely on police, when people can easily police themselves, is borderline retarded.

Very consequential. People cannot possibly effectively police themselves. The Leviathan goes through all this, but it's too long for me to summarise here. In any case, your paranoia about the state is showing. You are living in a consitutional democracy. Not communist China. If you want to drag this into the realms of political philosophy, I suggest you read up the background knowledge before blabbering about this you don't know. If they were truly abusing their power, Americans streets would look like Burma.

Why would it matter, unless you're arguing that the entire population will become nutcases?

Millions of civilians + proper gun safety + police > Millions of unarmed civilians + police

Yes, yes I am. The entire population has the potential to become a nutcase. Go into ANY jail and talk to the prisoners. At least half of them will be first time offenders that to this day cannot explain their actions.

If everyone has a gun? Shoot him repeatedly.

And what of the situation when he does the same exact thing when guns are banned, but with a knife? What did you change other than the entire bank being armed properly and being able to ensure him that if he harms that woman, his life is forfeit?

You would sacrifice someone else's life for the sake of a criminal not getting what they wanted. You are the exact type of person who we do not want having guns. Knife, gun, shaving razor. If anyone's life is at stake, you give the criminal want he wants (as long as it isn't a life), and track him down after he loses the hostage. Even worse, if he knows you have guns, he might take the hostage with him.

I'll end this post with one more point.

Only those prepared to shoot should be shot at.

If you wanted to play cop, you better know this. Lives are infinitely more important than possessions. Before you sacrifice the next hostage, think about this. And if you ever become a hostage, you better hope the guy trying to stop the criminal knows this too.

[Esau of Isaac]

Not only are guns seldom used in self-defense, but they're aren't that great for it, either. Life isn't like Fire Emblem, where you'd get shot, and then you'd shoot back. The power is in the first shot, and when you're shot, your gun isn't going to protect you, and you aren't going to be able to shoot back.

It's best you leave, because you refuse to understand that the number of guns that are used to kill people out of the total number of guns is incredibly fucking small.

There are ninety guns for every one hundred people.. Divide 360,000 by 27,000,000.

Is this getting through yet?

Yes, knives will be used more. But they are much less efficient than guns are, and they are MUCH easier to defend against.

It would be easier to do if the ones in question had guns. But unless you think that people are all awesome kung-fu masters, then banning guns and letting knife homicide go on the rise wouldn't change anything.

Now I wonder when the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia was...

Hahaha, now look at your knife crime, and compare it to overall crime. Hey, what changed? Oh yeah, you just took guns away. People are still viciously murdered by the dozens.

No, it wouldn't be. You don't know he's a criminal, so he has the advantage. Your gun means shit all if his is pointed at you while yours is in your holster. The only time you'd have a chance to draw it is if it's not pointed at you, in which case he has a hostage and he'll either force you to drop the gun, or you'll get an innocent killed.

I think you're failing to understand that if the entire bank is armed with guns, the man will not be leaving alive if he attempts any form of violence. This is much different from the case when everyone is defenseless and is force to obey the man. If the criminal, intent on robbing a bank, finds out that he is going to die if he tries to go through with his plan, he's not going to do it.

Show proof of that, or it didn't happen.

You want me to show that knife crime rose when knives were banned? I'm going to be leaving soon, so this should hold you over until later on

No, but they know how to track criminals. As for disarmament of police...proof or it didn't happen. In anything, they're getting more weapons these days - tasers and what not.

You want me to show you evidence that police have been disarmed in areas? Really? Have you ever heard of the UK before in your life? It's completely rare for law enforcement to carry firearms.

In any case where the gun was not used to immediately kill, the criminal intends to take something and run. The State has detectives for this line of work.

What's your point? This doesn't even counter my point. When I say "I don't like being the baby for the state, and would appreciate being able to properly defend myself", you don't say "But the state has people that can help."

I'd like to see you eat STEAK with a GUN and fork.

Flimsy dodge. If knives are used in crime, why not ban knives? You can eat meat without a knife if it comes down to it?

Unless you can find proof that isn't one American city vs another, I highly doubt that correlation of crime rate:gun availablity is true. You hypothetical situation never seems to take into account hostages - unless you assume the hostage is dead anyway.

Wait, what? Why can't I use one American city against another, where one has a lower amount of guns and the other has a higher number of guns?

Only because you took it out of context. Some people are suggestign that knives can kill as quickly as a gun. Here we have a man strong enough to overpower prison guards and flee, with a knife, taking over 30 minutes to kill a woman. Quick.

Please answer my question:

Do you believe that the percent of weapons used for crime and violence outweighs the amount used for other purposes?

Well, at least you admit gun crimes rates have gone down.

Um...why wouldn't they go down?

Next step is to ask why. Criminals can always kill people. You can do it with your bare hands if you knew how. But sucessful murders must have also dropped when guns were banned. Crime rate mate have stayed the same, but the amount of people escaping with their lives is more important.

Switzerland, which requires all males over the age of twenty to own an assault rifle, as a lower homicide rate per capita than the UK.

If you rob one guy with a gun, you're a petty criminal and will let the guy live. Robbing a bank takes longer. Either way, there are enough CCTV cameras around to catch a criminal, as will there be fingerprints and all sorta of other details a detective can use to trace the criminal.

Are you trying to say that all criminals rob banks, or something? Really?

Very consequential. People cannot possibly effectively police themselves.

Been doing it pretty well for the past couple centuries.

The Leviathan goes through all this, but it's too long for me to summarise here. In any case, your paranoia about the state is showing. You are living in a consitutional democracy. Not communist China. If you want to drag this into the realms of political philosophy, I suggest you read up the background knowledge before blabbering about this you don't know. If they were truly abusing their power, Americans streets would look like Burma.

The government doesn't need to be executing thought criminals to be abusing its power. I'm not paranoid, I'm a realist; and the fact stands that if you give the government more power, it will utilize it. This fact has held true throughout history.

Yes, yes I am. The entire population has the potential to become a nutcase. Go into ANY jail and talk to the prisoners. At least half of them will be first time offenders that to this day cannot explain their actions.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure you actually believed the entire population can't be trusted before utterly dismissing your opinion.

You would sacrifice someone else's life for the sake of a criminal not getting what they wanted.

No. I would not.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth. It's insulting.

You are the exact type of person who we do not want having guns. Knife, gun, shaving razor. If anyone's life is at stake, you give the criminal want he wants (as long as it isn't a life), and track him down after he loses the hostage. Even worse, if he knows you have guns, he might take the hostage with him.

If the entire bank has guns, he's not going anywhere. If you can stop the criminal without giving him what he wants (which is what would occur if everyone were properly armed), he wouldn't even commit the crime in the first place, because his stupid ass would be dead in the space of a few seconds.

If you wanted to play cop, you better know this. Lives are infinitely more important than possessions. Before you sacrifice the next hostage, think about this. And if you ever become a hostage, you better hope the guy trying to stop the criminal knows this too.

Don't you take the moral high road. If lives are more important to you, then you would let everyone have weapons to properly defend themselves against the minority that wants to harm them. If no one but the criminals have weapons, then the criminals have more power. If everyone can obtain weapons, then everyone has power.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns.

[Nightgraves]

It's best you leave, because you refuse to understand that the number of guns that are used to kill people out of the total number of guns is incredibly fucking small.

There are ninety guns for every one hundred people.. Divide 910,000 by 27,000,000.

Well, so you re saying that because I must be fearful that other people have guns I should buy one? It doesn't really solves anything, let alone make you safer...

Is this getting through yet?

It would be easier to do if the ones in question had guns. But unless you think that people are all awesome kung-fu masters, then banning guns and letting knife homicide go on the rise wouldn't change anything.

So also all criminals are trained...? Hell, you find how to protect yourself from weaponless to knive holding criminals in Nat&Geo XD.

Also, you can grab the hand where the other dude is holding the knive to stop him from stabbing you, whereas you'd get shot if you try that with a guy with a gun (movies don't count, that is not something a normal people will be able to succesfully do).

Hahaha, now look at your knife crime, and compare it to overall crime. Hey, what changed? Oh yeah, you just took guns away. People are still viciously murdered by the dozens.

Viciously murdered by the dozens? You make it sound as if there is a man slaughter everywhere...

I think you're failing to understand that if the entire bank is armed with guns, the man will not be leaving alive if he attempts any form of violence. This is much different from the case when everyone is defenseless and is force to obey the man. If the criminal, intent on robbing a bank, finds out that he is going to die if he tries to go through with his plan, he's not going to do it.

That's pointless. If he really needed to rob the bank, he'd find a more crafty way.

Anyways, this isn't a movie. A criminal with a gun can enter, shot some random bullets and make everyone get scared and hdie. A man with a knive can't really create that much chaos, unless he is wielding a freaking katana.

Not every bank is loaded with commandos XD. They count on the fact that the Vault has specific times to open, the persons working there don't have the combinatio, things of the sort... It's waaay less expensive.

I don't really know what kind of scenario you are trying to picture us.

You want me to show that knife crime rose when knives were banned? I'm going to be leaving soon, so this should hold you over until later on

Hey, see the laws of Singapur and also notice that it has the least crime in the world PLUS a low incident of violent crimes.

You want me to show you evidence that police have been disarmed in areas? Really? Have you ever heard of the UK before in your life? It's completely rare for law enforcement to carry firearms.

So this actually helps the argument of banning guns...

Flimsy dodge. If knives are used in crime, why not ban knives? You can eat meat without a knife if it comes down to it?

Let's ban hands! Afterall you can kill someone with them!

Let's ban water! Since you can drown someone with it!

Don't over exagerate...

Please answer my question:

Do you believe that the percent of weapons used for crime and violence outweighs the amount used for other purposes?

War...

Switzerland, which requires all males over the age of twenty to own an assault rifle, as a lower homicide rate per capita than the UK.

And you know that all of them are required to serve in the military for a given period???

It's way more logical than give it to random persons which you don't really know if they know how to use, manage a gun; let alone consider the responsibilities it comes with it.

Been doing it pretty well for the past couple centuries.

Sorry, where is all this Anarchy you speak about?

The government doesn't need to be executing thought criminals to be abusing its power. I'm not paranoid, I'm a realist; and the fact stands that if you give the government more power, it will utilize it. This fact has held true throughout history.

And Romans, Vikings, Mayans, etc. voted???

Even so, if you think this way, go to a secluded island were you can do without a government.

If the entire bank has guns, he's not going anywhere. If you can stop the criminal without giving him what he wants (which is what would occur if everyone were properly armed), he wouldn't even commit the crime in the first place, because his stupid ass would be dead in the space of a few seconds.

Let's say this bank has loads of guards.

Even so, the criminals have an advantage: Fear. The criminals will be willing to kill, but how many guards will be willing to do the same? Also think they are also civilians, and I don't think they'll know what to do in case of hostages, despite the training they must undertake.

Don't you take the moral high road. If lives are more important to you, then you would let everyone have weapons to properly defend themselves against the minority that wants to harm them. If no one but the criminals have weapons, then the criminals have more power. If everyone can obtain weapons, then everyone has power.

Are you saying lives are less important?

Urm, why not take the guns away from those you say want to harm others? XD

And as said above, criminals are willing to kill- you can't say so about the rest of the people.

And anyways, even if you have weapons, pray tell me: what are you going to do agains a commando or a marine? XD It's not a freaking movie, you wouldn't last long.

In that case, why not give nuclear weaponry to civilians???

Let's enter Anarchy, I guess :P

------------------

To Crystal:

Great point.

[Gatrie: Guns Blazing]

I dont have any guns. Nope. Stop staring at gun holster plz.

[Esau of Isaac]

Well, so you re saying that because I must be fearful that other people have guns I should buy one? It doesn't really solves anything, let alone make you safer...

No, I'm saying that the fact that some guns are used to kill does not in any way mean that guns should be banned, because the number of guns that are used to murder are very small, and the effect of removing them is not going to remove the sore. Essentially, it's like sticking duct tape over a hole in the Hoover Dam.

So also all criminals are trained...? Hell, you find how to protect yourself from weaponless to knive holding criminals in Nat&Geo XD.

Also, you can grab the hand where the other dude is holding the knive to stop him from stabbing you, whereas you'd get shot if you try that with a guy with a gun (movies don't count, that is not something a normal people will be able to succesfully do).

It's not as easy as just grabbing a guy's hand to stop him from stabbing you. If the guy wants to kill you and has a knife, and you're unarmed, chances are you're going to die unless you know how to properly defend yourself. Picture in your mind if you had a knife and really truly wanted to kill someone about your size. Unless this person is lucky and/or quick, or a fast runner, you're going to be able to injure them pretty easily. And this is assuming the person can clearly see you coming.

Either way, it's a moot point, because an efficient criminal wouldn't let the situation get out of hand anyways. If he wants to kill you with a knife, s/he'll just injure you while you are unaware, and likewise with a gun. If I have a knife to your throat, and intend to kill you if you resist in the same way that a gunman would intend to kill you with a gun if you resist, your scenario of disarming me is a pretty big pipe dream, because I only need to clench a few muscles to stick a bit of metal into your jugular.

Viciously murdered by the dozens? You make it sound as if there is a man slaughter everywhere...

Admittedly, it was badly worded. I did not mean in one case of dozens being murdered, and indeed was referring to a general statistic over a period of time. But homicides by other means than guns are very common and occur quite often.

That's pointless. If he really needed to rob the bank, he'd find a more crafty way.

Not very often have I ever heard of a "more crafty way" in a bank robbery.

Anyways, this isn't a movie. A criminal with a gun can enter, shot some random bullets and make everyone get scared and hdie. A man with a knive can't really create that much chaos, unless he is wielding a freaking katana.

I never said it was a movie, and I never said that a man with a knife has an equal amount of force as a man with a gun, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to assume that if everyone has guns then criminals will be all over the place and order will collapse.

Not every bank is loaded with commandos XD. They count on the fact that the Vault has specific times to open, the persons working there don't have the combinatio, things of the sort... It's waaay less expensive.

I didn't say it was loaded with commandos, either. It could be the average Joe or Jane, and if there are thirty people in a bank that are armed with guns and one tries to pull something for some cash, they're going to end up with less force than required to rob the place.

I don't really know what kind of scenario you are trying to picture us.

I am trying to make you envision the possibility of you holding a large number of individuals hostage when they are well armed. Think of entering a building with a gun and firing it when everyone else has a gun and is properly educated on its use. Do you really think that this one person will be able to really control all of these people effectively? Really?

Hey, see the laws of Singapur and also notice that it has the least crime in the world PLUS a low incident of violent crimes.

The rest of the world is not Singapore, and what worked for a tiny city-state will not just suddenly apply to everyone else.

I mean, this isn't to just handwave away all of Singapore's safety, but Singapore is pretty damned small. Like, three hundred miles in diameter. We can't just take this same area, whose crime per capita isn't necessarily a Heaven on Earth, and apply it to something millions of square miles in diameter.

So this actually helps the argument of banning guns...

How? At all?

Let's ban hands! Afterall you can kill someone with them!

Let's ban water! Since you can drown someone with it!

Don't over exagerate...

I'm illustrating that it's illogical to ban guns just because they can hurt another.

War...

Well that was not an answer at all.

And you know that all of them are required to serve in the military for a given period???

And? The point is, they have one of the highest concentration of guns per capita in the entire world, and one of the lowest crime rates too.

It's way more logical than give it to random persons which you don't really know if they know how to use, manage a gun; let alone consider the responsibilities it comes with it.

Where did I condone giving a gun to someone that is improperly trained in its use?

Sorry, where is all this Anarchy you speak about?

What Anarchy?

Seriously, what? Since when is the people learning how to help themselves Anarchy? Is deciding not to rely on the state for every single thing a weakness, these days?

And Romans, Vikings, Mayans, etc. voted???

...What?

Even so, if you think this way, go to a secluded island were you can do without a government.

Why would I want to do away with government in its entirety?

Let's say this bank has loads of guards.

Even so, the criminals have an advantage: Fear. The criminals will be willing to kill, but how many guards will be willing to do the same? Also think they are also civilians, and I don't think they'll know what to do in case of hostages, despite the training they must undertake.

I very highly doubt that there are many cases where a criminal walks into a bank with several of the individuals well armed and is at all successful in his endeavors.

If anything, this weak argument is that more should be properly trained to defend themselves, not that guns should be taken away.

Are you saying lives are less important?

Nowhere did I say this, nor did I once imply it.

Urm, why not take the guns away from those you say want to harm others? XD

Because I'm not God, and can't remove guns from only the people that intend to harm others. Which is why removing guns from everyone wouldn't help at all, because the ones that want to harm others would still exist, and still do so through other means. The only thing has changed is that now the populace that are in danger of being harmed can no longer fight back as well as this individual can.

And as said above, criminals are willing to kill- you can't say so about the rest of the people.

You think that all criminals are fine with the idea of trying to kill people with guns to defend themselves?

And anyways, even if you have weapons, pray tell me: what are you going to do agains a commando or a marine? XD It's not a freaking movie, you wouldn't last long.

...What? You're right, this isn't a movie, so where in the world did commandos and marines come into this?

In that case, why not give nuclear weaponry to civilians???

Because a handgun doesn't level a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people, and doesn't irradiate the surrounding land for several decades.

Is that enough, or are you actually going to try to pursue the most annoying bullshit defense employed by gun control supporters?

Let's enter Anarchy, I guess tongue.gif

Yeah, because wanting everyone to be able to defend themselves is Anarchy. Right on with the slap to the face, Champ.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Gatrie: Guns Blazing]

your post count will never go up if you keep doing that :o

on topic: Guns were made to bring peace thru death. Both to the shooter and the shootee...in a sense

[Nightgraves]

[...]

I won't bother to answer most, since it seems you didn't even read it well- to be honest.

Just some key points, for the rest, please reread and think it a bit more (and see to what I responded, and why it was point by point):

- "More crafty" in a bank robbery goes into stealing without force, gosh. See how you only think along the lines of violence?

- The part about marines and commandos goes for the fact that you seem to mistrust the State itself. There goes the Anarchic thing I mentioned too.

- There are some countries waaaay smaller than the US, for example, which are rated as more violent- and not exactly third world countries. That has to do with laws and how they are managed. Thus the Singapur reference.

- You don't understand that just selling guns to the public doesn't solves anything. Switzerland makes their people TRAIN with them, and with that comes certain resposibility. You failed to even talk about that.

I'll be honest here, but I rather not sell guns to everyone- how certain I am it isn't falling into the hands of an idiot?

- The nuke thing. It didn't actually refer to guns, but to your mistrust of your government.

- The part of the Vikings, Romans, etc. was plain simple. I'll requote what you said. Please see to what I respond to.

The government doesn't need to be executing thought criminals to be abusing its power. I'm not paranoid, I'm a realist; and the fact stands that if you give the government more power, it will utilize it. This fact has held true throughout history.

Note: I will sometimes exaggerate to your exaggearations to make a point, sorry if it wasn't that obvious.

------------------

To Gatling:

What did you meant with post count? XP

[Meteor]

how certain I am it isn't falling into the hands of an idiot?

Idiots can be dangerous with more than just weapons. Vehicles, for example.

[Nightgraves]

Idiots can be dangerous with more than just weapons. Vehicles, for example.

Well, as someone said here about banning knives- it is simply stupid. You can ban everything.

But let's be honest, besides killing and injuring- what is the use of a gun at home?

[Meteor]

Intimidation. You don't have to fire the gun to utilize it.

[Judge Judy]

Yeah I own four guns. I only used them a couple of times...yeah...

Though I live in a area where majority of people have atleast one gun...its a ruff area.

[Liz]

if i was in a situation where i was at risk of being killed by someone and i had a gun, i would kill him

in a heartbeat.

the world isn't all about picking flowers and sipping cups of tea. if having a gun increases at least by a tiny amount my chances of living, i support them to the fullest. and as its been stated time and time again, just because guns are banned doesn't mean they will not be available for the criminals.

Example: drugs are illegal to have in any way. however, any idiot can get ahold of practically any type of drug by asking the right people. the same situation would apply with guns. and if criminals have guns, and we don't, then what are we? but sitting ducks, just waiting to be snuffed out by some random guy.

i say guns should still be kept legal, but maybe stricter regulations.

[Esau of Isaac]

I won't bother to answer most, since it seems you didn't even read it well- to be honest.

I read every single word.

- "More crafty" in a bank robbery goes into stealing without force, gosh. See how you only think along the lines of violence?

Because that's generally the only way that individuals steal from banks? Bank robberies without force are pretty damn rare, as far as I know.

- The part about marines and commandos goes for the fact that you seem to mistrust the State itself. There goes the Anarchic thing I mentioned too.

I lack a massive amount of trust in the state. It can work well, but the people shouldn't have to give up a massive manner in which to defend themselves to suck on more of the state's tit. It's asking for trouble.

- There are some countries waaaay smaller than the US, for example, which are rated as more violent- and not exactly third world countries. That has to do with laws and how they are managed. Thus the Singapur reference.

Singapore is fucking tiny. It's a city-state. Like, I might as well compare the crime rate of Singapore to, like, a quarter of Rhode Island. What I am saying is that Singapore's use won't be applied as effectively elsewhere, because they're not so small that they can deal with it in such a manner.

- You don't understand that just selling guns to the public doesn't solves anything. Switzerland makes their people TRAIN with them, and with that comes certain resposibility. You failed to even talk about that.

No, I said very clearly that individuals should be properly taught on how to handle a weapon. In fact, I already clarified for you in my last post (ironically being followed by a post of yours which complained I was not reading closely enough) that I do not condone individuals buying a gun without being well aware of its uses and in how to properly defend themselves.

I'll be honest here, but I rather not sell guns to everyone- how certain I am it isn't falling into the hands of an idiot?

You're not certain. But unless you think that the number of guns that will be used in disgusting and barbarous acts will outweigh the ones that don't (and newsflash, they make up a tiny fraction of a percent), then you're going overboard.

Stupid people will always exist, and fucking over everyone else because of those stupid people is outright unfair and dangerous, because even after all the precautions you take, some dumb bastard can still fuck it all up.

- The nuke thing. It didn't actually refer to guns, but to your mistrust of your government.

Is there something wrong with wanting people to be properly capable of helping themselves, rather than relying on an entity that has shown shitty behavior in the past? Hell, even if they had a terrific track record, what is the problem with having the people be more independent?

- The part of the Vikings, Romans, etc. was plain simple. I'll requote what you said. Please see to what I respond to.

So are you trying to tell me that the Vikings and the Romans didn't abuse the power when they were given it? Really? Really?

[Crystal Shards]

Yes, knives will be used more. But they are much less efficient than guns are, and they are MUCH easier to defend against.

Um, you say that, but once you get stabbed the likeliness of you being able to stab back goes down quuiiitte a bit, especially with an attack from behind. I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself there, buddy. The question isn't what's "more efficient." Someone who has used a knife before (i.e. in knife fights) will be efficient enough to kill you. Even in the case where there's someone who's pissed off enough and has a knife, the knife will be "efficient" enough.

Also, "In half of the robberies a note is shown to the teller, in the other half an oral demand is made. In one quarter of robberies a firearm is used, usually a handgun, while in half a weapon is threatened. Only a small percentage are burglaries of the vault, only 51 out of 7,000 bank heists in the US in 2006. Even fewer used a "depository trap". Acts of violence occur only rarely, 4.5% of the time, but can be very violent when they do occur. See, for example the North Hollywood shootout." - Wikipedia

Note (because someone is going to be stupid enough to argue this): The part about acts of violence happening rarely means generally that there was no resistance. Most robbers aren't going to just fucking shoot people because they feel like it; they're going to get their money and run. They're there for the in-and-out, the hit-and-run. No one's going to bother popping off people, especially if they think they might run into the cops and need those bullets. Also, adding murder charges is not fun in the case that someone gets caught.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Crystal Shards

[borkborkbork]

It's best you leave, because you refuse to understand that the number of guns that are used to kill people out of the total number of guns is incredibly fucking small.

Right. Crime rate is also incredibly fucking small. Let's not reduce that any further either. Nice logic there.

There are ninety guns for every one hundred people.. Divide 360,000 by 27,000,000.

Also, while you have those links: In the US 90/100 people have guns. Rate gun violence is 3.6/100,000. Guns are banned in Australia. We have 0.3073 /100,000. Let's take all homicide into account now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate

US is up to 5.7, Australia is up to 1.28. Nice steep rise in knife kills there.

Is this getting through yet?

+1

It would be easier to do if the ones in question had guns. But unless you think that people are all awesome kung-fu masters, then banning guns and letting knife homicide go on the rise wouldn't change anything.

Again, I find myself mentioning her name. Kitty Genovese. 30mins to kill one girl. From a man who later overpowered a gaurd and broke out of jail.

Hahaha, now look at your knife crime, and compare it to overall crime. Hey, what changed? Oh yeah, you just took guns away. People are still viciously murdered by the dozens.

Look up. If we're being murdered by the dozen, you're being murdered by the hundreds.

I think you're failing to understand that if the entire bank is armed with guns, the man will not be leaving alive if he attempts any form of violence. This is much different from the case when everyone is defenseless and is force to obey the man. If the criminal, intent on robbing a bank, finds out that he is going to die if he tries to go through with his plan, he's not going to do it.

It is a Mexican standoff. If he values his life, the criminal will drop the gun. If he doesn't, he'll tell everyone else to raise their arms so you won't be able to gun your gun. If everyone tries to resist, there is a chance he'll kill the hostage and find another. You can shoot him at this point, but there would be a loss of 2 lives (excluding the criminal).

Do criminals value their life? I doubt it, but who knows?

You want me to show that knife crime rose when knives were banned? I'm going to be leaving soon, so this should hold you over until later on

It replaced terrorism as major priority. Not firearm related crime. Irrelevant article.

You want me to show you evidence that police have been disarmed in areas? Really? Have you ever heard of the UK before in your life? It's completely rare for law enforcement to carry firearms.

The UK has the grunt police force not carrying firearms, likely because no one else is and thus they don't need it. However, they have various groups within the police that do carry firearms. They are not disarmed to the point that a criminal gang who smuggled in some guns can take them.

What's your point? This doesn't even counter my point. When I say "I don't like being the baby for the state, and would appreciate being able to properly defend myself", you don't say "But the state has people that can help."

No, I say you don't need to be able to defend yourself. The state does a much better job than you anyway. I also think, this guy could become a nutcase, best not arm him. Only arm the people we know won't become nutcases.

Flimsy dodge. If knives are used in crime, why not ban knives? You can eat meat without a knife if it comes down to it?

No, if you took the time to read into it, you would see what I mean. Knives have a practical purpose that doesn't invlove harming people. Guns do not. (Protecting yourself with a gun involves harming them.)

Wait, what? Why can't I use one American city against another, where one has a lower amount of guns and the other has a higher number of guns?

Because it doesn't take into account the psychology of a people who have lived without carrying guns.

Please answer my question:

Do you believe that the percent of weapons used for crime and violence outweighs the amount used for other purposes?

Depends on the weapon. No. But the percentage of guns used for crime is high enough that it warrants banning them. And their use for other purposes is...what? Restricted to a shooting range?

Switzerland, which requires all males over the age of twenty to own an assault rifle, as a lower homicide rate per capita than the UK.

Their ammo must be seperated from the gun. They might as well all be carrying sticks.

Are you trying to say that all criminals rob banks, or something? Really?

Perhaps you should take the time to read the whole point, before finding something you can rebut on, and move on. Any petty crime is easily traced. Any big crime will take longer to do.

Been doing it pretty well for the past couple centuries.

Only if you redefine "well".

The government doesn't need to be executing thought criminals to be abusing its power. I'm not paranoid, I'm a realist; and the fact stands that if you give the government more power, it will utilize it. This fact has held true throughout history.

So, which consitutional democratic government has abused its power without a gigantic uprising by the people? Where abusing is defined objectively, of course.

No. I would not.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth. It's insulting.

You can't say that you'd shoot a criminal with a hostage, and then say you wouldn't sacrifice the hostage to stop a crime. They are the exact same thing. I'm not putting the words in your mouth. You are.

If the entire bank has guns, he's not going anywhere. If you can stop the criminal without giving him what he wants (which is what would occur if everyone were properly armed), he wouldn't even commit the crime in the first place, because his stupid ass would be dead in the space of a few seconds.

His stupid ass would have killed the hostage in those few seconds. You noted it yourself. He is stupid. How do you even know he values his life?

Don't you take the moral high road. If lives are more important to you, then you would let everyone have weapons to properly defend themselves against the minority that wants to harm them. If no one but the criminals have weapons, then the criminals have more power. If everyone can obtain weapons, then everyone has power.

Hmm...we might get someone with this line of thought.

If only that were true. Humans are not machines. If we perform an action at one time, in one circumstances, we might not do so again in in the same circumstance the next time. This unreliability in humans means that we do not know when someone will crack and do something stupid like go on a killing spree.

In this, we are like babies. And you do not give a baby a sharp object.

Normal citizens that have temporarily cracked make up half the prisoners in a jail. At least. The other half is likely organised enough not to kill people. Giving guns to citizens means that normal people who have got nuts can do more damage. Organised crime arent usually out to kill people, bad for business.

Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns.

See arguements of gun availibilty.

*SNIP*

Not going through them. Nightgraves' arguements aren't worth replying to, even if he is on the same side.

[Crystal Shards]

Yeah, guns won't be available to normal people but criminals sure as hell will get them. Hello drug trade? Hello illegal arms race? Can you hear me?

[Judge Judy]

Yeah, guns won't be available to normal people but criminals sure as hell will get them. Hello drug trade? Hello illegal arms race? Can you hear me?

Yes its very easy to get guns. Heck some people don't even buy them since they are so dam easy to get. So banning them its kinda pointless.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Luxord

[Esau of Isaac]

Right. Crime rate is also incredibly fucking small. Let's not reduce that any further either. Nice logic there.

That's not what I said, but nice job misinterpreting.

Also, while you have those links: In the US 90/100 people have guns. Rate gun violence is 3.6/100,000. Guns are banned in Australia. We have 0.3073 /100,000. Let's take all homicide into account now.

Yeah, gun crime's totally not going to go down when guns are banned.

US is up to 5.7, Australia is up to 1.28. Nice steep rise in knife kills there.

You're not looking at the overall crime rate, however. Hell, it and the UK have some of the highest Assault rates in the world. Not to mention rape, and in fact the highest of total crime victims on the list.

Again, I find myself mentioning her name. Kitty Genovese. 30mins to kill one girl. From a man who later overpowered a gaurd and broke out of jail.

Are you failing to understand that not everyone is Kitty Genovese? Can you not grasp that someone can easily kill another with a few stabs in a second?

This is like me citing 50 Cent and how he was shot several times and lived as a reason why guns aren't dangerous.

Look up. If we're being murdered by the dozen, you're being murdered by the hundreds.

Yeah, I agree, your crime rate is OH SO GREAT MAN

It is a Mexican standoff. If he values his life, the criminal will drop the gun. If he doesn't, he'll tell everyone else to raise their arms so you won't be able to gun your gun. If everyone tries to resist, there is a chance he'll kill the hostage and find another. You can shoot him at this point, but there would be a loss of 2 lives (excluding the criminal).

Of course, this is still at the very least a better situation than it would be if he were the armed one and no one else was.

Do criminals value their life? I doubt it, but who knows?

People that can think.

It replaced terrorism as major priority. Not firearm related crime. Irrelevant article.

...Holy shit. I can't believe you just tried to dodge the article's statements with such a cockamamie handwave.

Congratulations.

The UK has the grunt police force not carrying firearms, likely because no one else is and thus they don't need it. However, they have various groups within the police that do carry firearms. They are not disarmed to the point that a criminal gang who smuggled in some guns can take them.

They're rare enough that if a policeman is seen with a firearm, it's an oddity.

No, I say you don't need to be able to defend yourself. The state does a much better job than you anyway. I also think, this guy could become a nutcase, best not arm him. Only arm the people we know won't become nutcases.

Which is not something that you can verify, since the state doesn't have some amazing crazy people detector that can't be used when everyone else receives a gun.

No, if you took the time to read into it, you would see what I mean. Knives have a practical purpose that doesn't invlove harming people. Guns do not. (Protecting yourself with a gun involves harming them.)

So you would say that all of the guns that are bought are all used in harming people?

You continue to astound me.

Because it doesn't take into account the psychology of a people who have lived without carrying guns.

If there is a gun ban, then yes it fucking does. Don't continue with the stupid retorts that make no sense at all.

Depends on the weapon. No. But the percentage of guns used for crime is high enough that it warrants banning them.

The percent of guns used in crime is incredibly small.

Their ammo must be seperated from the gun. They might as well all be carrying sticks.

I've never heard of that, and certainly nothing that states that they cannot carry the ammo with them.

Perhaps you should take the time to read the whole point, before finding something you can rebut on, and move on. Any petty crime is easily traced. Any big crime will take longer to do.

And again, what is the point of stating this distinction? I never said it wouldn't take longer to rob a bank than stab a guy and steal his wallet.

Only if you redefine "well".

And why do you say that?

So, which consitutional democratic government has abused its power without a gigantic uprising by the people? Where abusing is defined objectively, of course.

Do you want me to cite the several instances where the American government abused its position and power? Like, how many cases do you want?

You can't say that you'd shoot a criminal with a hostage, and then say you wouldn't sacrifice the hostage to stop a crime. They are the exact same thing. I'm not putting the words in your mouth. You are.

No, you're putting words in my mouth, and it's pissing me off. At no point did I say that it is fine to shoot the hostage to stop the criminal.

Seriously, stop it.

His stupid ass would have killed the hostage in those few seconds. You noted it yourself. He is stupid. How do you even know he values his life?

How do you even know that he would take a hostage and not just start killing people? The entire point of this is to assume that s/he has a certain objective in mind, mainly getting money.

If only that were true. Humans are not machines. If we perform an action at one time, in one circumstances, we might not do so again in in the same circumstance the next time. This unreliability in humans means that we do not know when someone will crack and do something stupid like go on a killing spree.

Again, unless you believe that the number that crack are higher than the number that won't, the distinction is unnecessary and useless. Especially if they're crazy enough to go on a killing spree, they're not going to mind waiting to get the proper weapons to do so.

Normal citizens that have temporarily cracked make up half the prisoners in a jail. At least. The other half is likely organised enough not to kill people. Giving guns to citizens means that normal people who have got nuts can do more damage. Organised crime arent usually out to kill people, bad for business.

This literally made no sense, and I would like you to cite some statistics.

[Rei]

... I am seeing some extremely biased arguing with no backup whatsoever... I will state my position and arguments for this discussion.

I am for firearm ownership, but also for firearm control. Let's understand this, banning them won't make them go away. Only an idiot would think that. And since people can still find another way to get them, then what about those who obey the laws and can't have one? They're left even more defenseless. People pay more attention to the gun-related crimes than the ones that are prevented due to the fact that someone protected themselves with a firearm. As Esau mentioned, only a small percent of crimes committed included the use of a firearm by the criminal. My father owns several guns. For protection, and for fun at the firing range. Heck, in his yard, we got to pop open a window and he shot a groundhog that has been screwing with him for months with a rifle.

I'm tired of hearing stuff about maniacs and mass murderers. Especially since they're a fraction of a percent of the murders. However, I do acknowledge that they exist and they can't be ignored. That's why I said I'm for firearm control. Which would make buying a firearm be harder and take longer for more checks and the such. Though it is a bit ridiculous to begin with.