Get Yer Guns.

[Esau of Isaac]

... 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.

I am in no way against checks and proper training of firearm use. I would encourage it, in fact, for anyone who wants to buy any kind of weapon. It would lead to an overall safer environment for everyone involved with them.

[Rei]

I am in no way against checks and proper training of firearm use. I would encourage it, in fact, for anyone who wants to buy any kind of weapon. It would lead to an overall safer environment for everyone involved with them.

Exactly my point. I wasn't against your argument primarily. Though I wouldn't always call them weapons constantly. Anything can be called a weapon really. Just a little nit-picky about that ever since my NRA training.

[borkborkbork]

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?

I can hear you, I'm not sure if you can hear me, though.

1) Criminals don't make up the every single person that uses a gun for crime. Not even close.

2) Why do you think an illegal weapon is so expensive?

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

I can say the same to you. Your point is that the percentage of guns being used for crime is small. My point is that it could be smaller.

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.

Now what would you rather be? Assault/raped or killed?

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?

And can you not understand that people can kill even easier with a gun? This has nothing to do with range. The skill needed for the average goon to kill someone with a gun is near zero compared to a knife.

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

I would still rather robbed than dead.

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.

No it isn't. In the case where he was armed and no one else was, he'd get the money and run. All lives are spared.

People that can think.

Of course, but they don't think in the same way. You would be willing to gamble someone's life on your belief that the criminal values his life?

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

I asked for proof that knife murders increased after guns being banned. This one merely states that knives are out of control. We can only be glad that they don't have their hands on guns.

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

Now I've forgotten the relevance of this line of thought. I was all for the state having weapons.

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.

And since you can't verify, you deny them all.

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

Slight correction, all guns are bought with the intention that someone will be harmed by it.

You continue to astound me.

New points of view are surprising, I know.

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?

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

I do note here that you've switched from lower amount to gun ban. Lower amount does not take into account the psychology. Gun ban would, if it the ban was put in place early enough for the people to have changed. But that doesn't take into account the influence from the state next door where guns are legal. Which is why I asked for not an American vs American example. Make enough sense for you?

The percent of guns used in crime is incredibly small.

And it would be nice to see them even smaller.

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

Well now you have. They're allowed to carry the ammo with them, but not in the magazine. I'm sure even you know that loading a gun take time. Which you don't have if you were going to play cop.

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.

You said that the police would not to able to reach any crime in time for them to stop it. I split the cases into petty and big. Big crimes take enough time for police to act. I conceded that they can't stop petty acts, but then carrying a gun with you wouldn't either. As a side not though, a normal criminal would not stab the guy unless he resisted.

And why do you say that?

Because the number of people losing their lives is still higher than it should be.

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?

The fact that the American governmental system has not changed dramatically shows that not enough people thought it was abuse of power for the country as a whole to care. Thus is the way of a constitutional democracy.

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.

And at no point did I accuse you of that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said sacrifice the hostage. Meaning shooting the criminal to stop his crimes. Because the criminal will shoot the hostage if you did so.

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.

And grabbing a hostage is a means for that to happen. And if you don't take him seriously by refusing a hands-up, it's quite likely he will shoot to show you he's serious.

Again, unless you believe that the number that crack are higher than the number that won't, the distinction is unnecessary and useless.

No, I believe the number that crack is high enough to warrant restricting weapons from the general population. The number that stay stable is significantly higher, I agree.

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.

Depends. Rage subsides to a point where some may go "Wait, why am I going on a killing spree in the first place?". This is because in psychology, we call guns a discriminative stimulus. If you're hungry, food makes you want a eat. If you're fucking angry, a gun may well make you want to kill before you get a chance to think.

Others maybe too impatient to get a knife, and simply get out a knife.

Finally, how is the common nut going to get a gun in a place where guns are illegal? I think we went though this before. Smuggling was the answer we came up with, which has a chance of getting caught. So you'd be able to catch at least some of the ones that do go for a gun before they start shooting.

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

Statistics I don't think I can give you, since I wouldn't know where to look. That knowledge came from Philip Zimbardo in his paper The Psychology of Evil: A Situationist Perspective on Recruiting Good People to Engage in Anti-Social Acts. Unfortunately, I've only got a hardcopy with me.

Basically he shows that any person, innately good or bad, can do evil things. By restricting guns from the general population, we can prevent those who would not normally go shooting people from doing so.

[lolDeath]

2) Why do you think an illegal weapon is so expensive?

Depends on location. I know people around here will sell a 9mm for about $40, they can be and have been purchased on a child's allowance. Weapons are just incredibly easy to come by, but if the supply was cut (higher standards for selling guns in the first place) that would cause prices to go up due to less availability, making it harder for some people to get their hands on.

But on that same note anyone can break into a house and take one, and people commonly drop guns used in murders or robberies in neighborhoods so someone will pick it up and the crime will be harder to link to them. America has let this slide for far too long for just raising the standards to work out I believe. Now if it wanted to educate children about it, raise the standards for purchase, and crack down on crimes committed with firearms or possession of a firearm we might have something going.

..imo

[General Spoon]

If guns were banned, there would be an inexplicable increase in the number of deer related car accidents.

Edited November 25, 2008 by General Spoon

[lolDeath]

Cars being raped by 4 people?

[Crystal Shards]

I can hear you, I'm not sure if you can hear me, though.

1) Criminals don't make up the every single person that uses a gun for crime. Not even close.

2) Why do you think an illegal weapon is so expensive?

1. Um, yes? Criminal: someone who commits a crime. Hurr.

2. It's... not? And even if it WAS incredibly expensive, people would still get them, either through, I dunno, getting money and buying it, or uh, stealing. Hurr.

[Duff Ostrich]

For one thing, Singapore is extremely authoritarian. None of us (should) want that for our own nation.

I'll try to answer as much as I can in the time given to me:

Fuck guns. All they'll lead to is even more shootings, murders, gang violence, and freak accidents which are all over the news. And fuck anyone who thinks they need a gun to protect themselves. All anyone needs is a knife or sword and they're fine.

Approving gun rights means more shootings and gang violence, and "protection" to people, who are likely to go on shootings themselves.

I do not care what people 'need' or what you perceive that they need. Guns are a RIGHT because we are a free people who should have the option of doing whatever we want as long as we are mindful of the rights of others. You have done nothing to address that.

Got nothing else to do, so I'll take a stab at this. Note though that I can't say anything about the purely American points, since I don't know, nor care too much about it.

Firstly, that "I don't trust my government line." You elect the government. The government supposedly stands in fear of getting ousted if they piss you off too much. An untrustworthy government is grounds for an ousting. Sure, if America was communist, then that would be valid. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about here.

Secondly, it does NOT make sense regardless. I don't know much about the Columbine case, but as I remember it, the Virginia Tech kid was not a criminal before the shooting. If guns were indeed banned, where do you think a normal guy gets the guns from?

*Walks down to the local gansters*

"'Sup, gimme a gun!"

Right...

Thirdly, the "only criminals will have guns part". Again, wrong. By simply banning guns, gun availability goes down. They'll have to be smuggled in from across borders, where if the guards are doing their job right, they'll get caught. Or they'll have to be robbed from those who have guns, who are trained in using them. Of course, I agree that it still is possible to get guns through either of these two avenues, but the amount of guns still drops. Drops to the point where a criminal gang has 1 or 2. The Police have 1 EACH. The army can also be called in for another what? 2 each?

I elect my representatives to represent my rights. I do not elect the police force, I do not elect the military, and most importantly I do not get to vote on the decisions they make.

And in any case, it doesn't matter because my lack of trust in the government is justified. Becoming complacent and assuming that your government has your best interests is a huge mistake. Their interest is power, and if I as a citizen get in the way of that then they will remove me.

No, I do not trust them enough to give up my arms.

Where does a normal guy get guns? Well, maybe the same place he gets marijuana. You see, getting guns off the black market is as ludicrously easy as it is to buy weed off the junkie dealer at the local high school. No, I dont do any drugs, but if I were so inclined I could get some very easily.

Making something illegal does not prevent it whatsoever. And you still have to explain WHY it should be illegal in the first place.

Number of occasions guns used for self defense <<<<<<< Number of occasions guns used for offense

Banning the would cut down on the numbers of both sides, but since the one on the left is so small anyway, it should just be a one-sided drop. And before you say that banning guns would make the right hand side RISE instead of drop, read my point above on gun availability.

You're still missing the point. Whether or not it would cause gun violence to decrease (this is not something I am conceding) is irrelevant. It is NOT enough to justify taking rights away from people.

And you cannot deny that removing gun rights is removing a right. It most certainly is, and just because you may or may not like a right has no bearing on whether or not it is a right to begin with. When you disallow people from doing something, you are restricting their rights. Arguing that gun violence may go down as a result of removing this right is just simply a terrible reason.

Indeed, the state exists to protect our rights, should someone try to tread on them. Thus, the individual should not have to carry the burden of protecting ourselves. Seems compatible to me.

And if someone WANTS to defend themselves, they should be allowed to. In the United States you have a responsibility to call the police and the RIGHT to protect yourself. No one says you have to. You have the inalienable right to let anyone who would infringe on your rights take advantage of you, but you also have the right to not let them.

Classic arguement. If you remove the guns, people will use knives. While the Police still have Guns. Gun > Knife.

Though the fact that people kill people still stands. That's a problem for the education system to fix, while they're teaching morality and ethics. But even with knives, you have a chance of survival. Kitty Genovese took over 30 minutes to get stabbed to death. Should have been enough for the police to arrive, were the onlookers not braindead.

Knife crimes did go up when guns were banned in both Australia and the UK.

Guns are more dangerous than knives? All the better I have one of those to protect me with instead of a knife.

Even if I DO have a knife collection that numbers in the thirties.

And that's as far as I'm going because I'm tired, and this whole arguement is pointless since banning guns will stop lots of violence no matter how you look at it.

And that point, whether true or false, is irrelevant no matter how you look at it.

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. In fact, if you say you're equipping yourself with a lethal weapon for your self-defense, for me, that means you're going for the kill from the get-go to defend yourself, and that's a murder through my eyes, even if it's a legal one. They may not be as effective, but non-lethal weapons exist to defend yourself if you want to.

It doesn't matter how you view murder, but what murder really is. Murder is killing someone without just cause. Killing someone that has invaded your home or is willing to hurt you or your family/friends is a just cause.

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

And you guys seem to be forgetting that a decent law-abiding citizen can turn into a killer. Give the guy a gun and you're only making things easier for him. And seriously, how is having a gun going to protect against other people having a gun? This isn't Fire Emblem where you can counterattack after being shot. If the gun doesn't kill you, it will incapacitate you so much that you'll be unable to use guns. So the power goes to the first shot, regardless if the other person is using a gun or a knife.

Correlation does not equal causation. The United States of America is a more violent nation than the UK, for example. But blaming guns for the reason is drawing a conclusion from way too little evidence. You do not know why the US is more violent than the UK, and neither do I. But scapegoating guns is a logical fallacy.

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.

Do not strawman the pro gun arguments.

I want guns because I want to trust MYSELF. Law enforcement will of course be called, but the person most responsible for my life is ME. But again, saying that all pro gun people 'dogmatically' stick to a certain view (when indeed its the anti gun people who wish to have the dogmatic government protect them) is to strawman us entirely. Dont do it.

1. Guns are as good for defense as the person holding them. Also, your hostage situation is unlikely in a home invasion scenario, unless you've seen too much Law and Order or something.

2. Preventing a crime by not allowing people to live their own lives is no way to prevent crime. My descriptor tag for this thread is 'Liberty vs Safety'. That was no accident. My argument is that all these petty safety arguments are unimportant in the face of our liberties in a free nation.

Also, saving yourself is better than letting the police save you for you. I have one life and I'll be damned if I will kneel down before my governing institution and beg for them to do what I ought to do myself. Guns are the right of everyone whether their government 'lets' them or not.

I hope I didn't miss too much, but anyhow I just want to reiterate why I am pro gun:

1. Liberty is more important than (perceived) safety. Any arguments for the banning of guns based on the premise that there will be less gun crime is an inadequate response for why guns should be banned.

2. In order for the banning of guns to be reasonable, the owning of a gun must inherently tread on someone's rights. Since that's obviously not the case, there is no reasonable explanation to ban guns.

[Balcerzak]

Okay, making my entry in this topic. There's already been a lot of back and forth on several issues, but I figured I'd go through and highlight/respond to a few specifics, then if necessary get dragged into a line-by-line later on.

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. In fact, if you say you're equipping yourself with a lethal weapon for your self-defense, for me, that means you're going for the kill from the get-go to defend yourself, and that's a murder through my eyes, even if it's a legal one. They may not be as effective, but non-lethal weapons exist to defend yourself if you want to.

The ability to own guns makes us free just by the general principle of it. The ability to purchase and possess a gun is freedom by allowing me to dispose of some of my property in exchange for the property of another's through voluntary and mutual exchange. And as that weren't enough, the rest of your post hinges on the assumption that the guns be owned for self defense, which is not necessarily the case. A person may want to own a gun for any of a number of reasons, some of which may include collecting, sporting, and the previously mentioned self defense. Prohibiting guns because you do not feel that self defense is a valid reason for ownership by its very nature precludes the ownership of guns for recreational use at a fire range, hunting game, or simply because one admires them for their worksmanship.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

And you guys seem to be forgetting that a decent law-abiding citizen can turn into a killer. Give the guy a gun and you're only making things easier for him. And seriously, how is having a gun going to protect against other people having a gun? This isn't Fire Emblem where you can counterattack after being shot. If the gun doesn't kill you, it will incapacitate you so much that you'll be unable to use guns. So the power goes to the first shot, regardless if the other person is using a gun or a knife.

Argument based on potential is shaky at best, a logical fallacy at worst. Consider for example an entirely analogous phrase, and it's implied conclusion. "You guys seem to be forgetting that a decent law-abiding citizen can turn into an alcoholic. Give the guy a bottle and you're only making things easier for him. [We should ban alcohol instead.]"

Furthermore, the fact that "unlike in Fire Emblem, real life doesn't have counter-attacks", precludes one of the major contributing factors towards self-defense ownership: deterrence. If a criminal has reason to suspect that a target may be well equipped to defend themselves, they are likely to rethink things.

Firstly, that "I don't trust my government line." You elect the government. The government supposedly stands in fear of getting ousted if they piss you off too much. An untrustworthy government is grounds for an ousting. Sure, if America was communist, then that would be valid. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about here.

The second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, encapsulates a deeper, more fundamental right. The right to revolution. This right is the ultimate check provided against tyrannical governments, and hopefully will never need be exercised, yet if you take away the right to keep and bear arms, you prevent the ability to ever exercise it, should it become necessary. We do not know what tomorrow may bring, so we must hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. To be sure, the order of the boxes must rightly be soap, ballot, then ammo, but if the last option is not available then come a truly despotic regime the citizenry is rendered helpless and complacent.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Number of occasions guns used for self defense <<<<<<< Number of occasions guns used for offense

And the # of guns used for recreation >>> either. Your point?

Though the fact that people kill people still stands. That's a problem for the education system to fix, while they're teaching morality and ethics. But even with knives, you have a chance of survival. Kitty Genovese took over 30 minutes to get stabbed to death. Should have been enough for the police to arrive, were the onlookers not braindead.

Okay, throughout this thread I've seen you harp on this Kitty Genovese thing a ridiculous number of times. From a quick look-over of the incident in question, it seems the man stabbed to incapacitate here, as the perpetrator went on to sexually violate her. As I understand it, rape is primarily a crime of control, so he must have wanted the victim alive and struggling. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to rape a corpse.

In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, and whose intent is to kill, knives can be extremely deadly. This should be a non-issue, I honestly can't buy into any claim that all, most, or even many, stabbings have some sort of thirty minute grace period for the victim.

Furthermore, many gun shot wounds also may leave the victim alive for many minutes, or even hours, depending on factors such as bullet size, wound location, etc.

Edit: Grammar (I'd left in a redundant synonym). Also, just for posterity, I would like to mention that at the time while I was drafting this reply Duff Ostrich had not yet submitted his.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Balcerzak

[Leonri]

Aside from hunting rifles, guns are manufactured and intended for one use only: to kill another human being.

The real question here, is the murder of a human ever justified?

I think not. Thus my aversion to guns.

[Liz]

Aside from hunting rifles, guns are manufactured and intended for one use only: to kill another human being.

The real question here, is the murder of a human ever justified?

I think not. Thus my aversion to guns.

let me ask you this question

you have a gun in your hand. there is a person who is threatening to kill a family member, lets say your son.

will you let that person kill your son, just because "murder is never justified"?

could you honestly just let some scumbag kill your child, who has a potential to become an honorable member of our society, just because murder isn't justified? would you rather your child die than some criminal who has contributed nothing to society except to steal, murder, rape?

because if you do, i would really hate to be your child.

[Leonri]

let me ask you this question

you have a gun in your hand. there is a person who is threatening to kill a family member, lets say your son.

will you let that person kill your son, just because "murder is never justified"?

could you honestly just let some scumbag kill your child, who has a potential to become an honorable member of our society, just because murder isn't justified? would you rather your child die than some criminal who has contributed nothing to society except to steal, murder, rape?

because if you do, i would really hate to be your child.

If I have a gun in my hand? Shoot him in the foot, tie him up and call the cops. Simple, and no murder on my conscience. "Don't kill him" =/= "Let him kill"

There's never a situation in which killing is necessary.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Leonri

[Duff Ostrich]

Aside from hunting rifles, guns are manufactured and intended for one use only: to kill another human being.

The real question here, is the murder of a human ever justified?

I think not. Thus my aversion to guns.

Ha, what a loaded question! Is murder ever justified? Let me answer that right after I find out if rape is ever justified.

No, murder is never justified. However, killing a person, however horrible it may be, in fact can be justified. Murder a person =/= killing a person.

And assuming the purpose of guns just to make them sound bad does not answer why they should be banned. Guns have a whole variety of uses. Though to describe a gun's use in the simplest way possible is this: A gun is an instrument that sends a metal object through the air at a very fast speed. That is all.

If I have a gun in my hand? Shoot him in the foot, tie him up and call the cops. Simple, and no murder on my conscience. "Don't kill him" =/= "Let him kill"

There's never a situation in which killing is necessary.

Shoot in the foot? That's stupid. If you want to hit him, you aim for the largest area, thus making most logical point of fire and the best chances to hit. Policemen are taught to do this.

Oh, and there is never a situation where killing is necessary. I guess you're right. However, there are situations where killing is the best answer available. And when it is, that is the (unfortunate) answer you take.

Edit: Added stuff

Edited November 25, 2008 by Duff Ostrich

[Crystal Shards]

Shoot him in the foot, tie him up and call the cops.

And when this doesn't stop someone?

Let's face it: if someone really, honestly wants to kill you, a shot in the foot (assuming you're even that good of an aim, lol) is not going to stop them. Like Duff Ostrich said, killing isn't necessary, but sometimes it's the best choice. Besides, if you're going to shoot someone somewhere pointless (and are going to claim amazing aim), shoot the shoulder or leg, not the foot.

[Hero]

I'll try to be brief.

I'm for unrestricted legal gun ownership.

The vast majority of the time I spend outdoors is either on Telegraph in Berkeley, or in various parts of Oakland. I've heard a lot of gunshots, and someone I knew just last year was killed walking in a park around 10 at night. I've seen the kind of people who fire those shots and commit those murders every day, and generally they aren't the kind of people who would say "aw, shucks" and hand something they own over to the cops just because it was deemed illegal. I don't know about you, but I'd like to be able to defend myself if one of them comes up at night and tries to mug me or something.

As to the argument that we don't have anything to worry about because our government will protect us, that's worthless. I'm not old enough to vote for my government, and even if I was they don't let people vote on their important policies, just their figureheads and a few silly propositions they let through. Even so, I've been arrested twice, both times because of a controversial policy I had no say in deciding. Both times, the police felt it was necessary to pull their guns on me. I don't really trust those policemen, who pulled their weapons on a ten-year-old and a fifteen-year-old for insignificant offenses, to defend me from anyone. With all the stories I've heard of cops making arbitrary searches and arrests, I don't really trust them in general.

Changing the legal code won't do anything to change the situation-almost everything you can do with a gun outside your home is already a crime in California. The law rarely applies to the police, and is ignored by serious criminals. When the victims arm themselves, though, maybe then something will change.

[Esau of Isaac]

I can say the same to you. Your point is that the percentage of guns being used for crime is small. My point is that it could be smaller.

And making it smaller doesn't make crime go away.

Now what would you rather be? Assault/raped or killed?

I would argue that the rate of assault and rape is high enough that I would rather retain our current somewhat higher homicide rate than have the same occur, but with America's population. But are you arguing that it's alright that Australia rates at the top of so many other forms of crime just because the person survived?

And can you not understand that people can kill even easier with a gun? This has nothing to do with range. The skill needed for the average goon to kill someone with a gun is near zero compared to a knife.

It's easier to kill with a gun, but you in no way have to have to be some kind of practitioner of knife-fu to kill someone with a knife. It's pretty damn simple as well.

I would still rather robbed than dead.

So would I, but that doesn't make your crime rate acceptable in the slightest.

No it isn't. In the case where he was armed and no one else was, he'd get the money and run. All lives are spared.

It's not acceptable in my eyes to disarm yourself so that the burglar, who is already a criminal has all the power. That's senseless, and only kowtowing to someone that is already intent on breaking the law. When a bad person has power, you shouldn't have to throw down your defenses to placate.

Of course, but they don't think in the same way. You would be willing to gamble someone's life on your belief that the criminal values his life?

On the flip side, you'd be willing to gamble everyone's life on your belief that the criminal cares whether someone lives or dies. And seeing as how you're against someone being able to use the proper means of defense, I don't find that a right form of thought.

I asked for proof that knife murders increased after guns being banned.

And your country putting them near the top of their list isn't evidence of that.

God damn.

This one merely states that knives are out of control. We can only be glad that they don't have their hands on guns.

Because knives are easier to get.

Now I've forgotten the relevance of this line of thought. I was all for the state having weapons.

Why the state, but not the people? Can't murderers be a part of the state as well?

And since you can't verify, you deny them all.

I deny that the state has some super power to detect craziness that can't be employed on everyone else that wants a firearm.

Slight correction, all guns are bought with the intention that someone will be harmed by it.

Can you back that claim?

New points of view are surprising, I know.

But yours is even more astounding.

I do note here that you've switched from lower amount to gun ban. Lower amount does not take into account the psychology.

Why does it not take into account the psychology?

Gun ban would, if it the ban was put in place early enough for the people to have changed. But that doesn't take into account the influence from the state next door where guns are legal. Which is why I asked for not an American vs American example. Make enough sense for you?

No it doesn't. Essentially, this seems a flimsy effort to try and stop me from proving your retarded view incorrect based on made up psychology. By your logic, gun ban statistics anywhere can't be used if there's a next-door country that doesn't have them.

And it would be nice to see them even smaller.

I think we could easily do that by educating everyone on the use of guns, and getting more guns in the hands of responsible people.

Well now you have. They're allowed to carry the ammo with them, but not in the magazine. I'm sure even you know that loading a gun take time. Which you don't have if you were going to play cop.

Loading a gun takes place in a few seconds. Are you really arguing that if a crime occurs, no one has time to load their guns?

Wow. Fucking amazing, you have no limits at how far you'll go.

You said that the police would not to able to reach any crime in time for them to stop it.

I didn't say that they wouldn't have time reaching any crime. I said that they would have a harder time reacting to many issues, because of the nature of knife crime.

And it's backed up by your fucking gigantic crime rate.

I split the cases into petty and big. Big crimes take enough time for police to act. I conceded that they can't stop petty acts, but then carrying a gun with you wouldn't either.

It seems to do well in other areas, where the crime rate is lower and guns aren't.

As a side not though, a normal criminal would not stab the guy unless he resisted.

Tell that to my dead Uncle.

Wait, you can't, because he was stabbed several times without any form of resistance.

Because the number of people losing their lives is still higher than it should be.

And removing proper forms of defense is not going to completely solve this problem. Gun education and use is a better method to solving that issue.

The fact that the American governmental system has not changed dramatically shows that not enough people thought it was abuse of power for the country as a whole to care. Thus is the way of a constitutional democracy.

...How would that at all change if it's an abuse of power?

And at no point did I accuse you of that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said sacrifice the hostage. Meaning shooting the criminal to stop his crimes. Because the criminal will shoot the hostage if you did so.

And I never said it was cool to sacrifice the hostage. Stop with your fucking ridiculousness.

And grabbing a hostage is a means for that to happen. And if you don't take him seriously by refusing a hands-up, it's quite likely he will shoot to show you he's serious.

How do you know he won't just indiscriminately kill a few, rather than taking a hostage? Why are you resigning yourself to bow down to the criminal, rather than finding better ways for everyone to be able to stop him?

No, I believe the number that crack is high enough to warrant restricting weapons from the general population. The number that stay stable is significantly higher, I agree.

Then why don't you call for the more thorough training of those significantly higher number, so that they can act as effectively as the state?

Depends. Rage subsides to a point where some may go "Wait, why am I going on a killing spree in the first place?". This is because in psychology, we call guns a discriminative stimulus. If you're hungry, food makes you want a eat. If you're fucking angry, a gun may well make you want to kill before you get a chance to think.

Others maybe too impatient to get a knife, and simply get out a knife.

Finally, how is the common nut going to get a gun in a place where guns are illegal? I think we went though this before. Smuggling was the answer we came up with, which has a chance of getting caught. So you'd be able to catch at least some of the ones that do go for a gun before they start shooting.

But what does this say for the people that do get the gun? Let's take a look:

Back at my High School, Santana High, there was a shooting. He killed two and badly injured thirteen others. These were indiscriminate attacks; he didn't care about hostages, or sparing people. The same occurred to Pearl High School, and instead of many more being injured, the shooter was stopped by an assistant principle, armed with a Colt .45.

Statistics I don't think I can give you, since I wouldn't know where to look. That knowledge came from Philip Zimbardo in his paper The Psychology of Evil: A Situationist Perspective on Recruiting Good People to Engage in Anti-Social Acts. Unfortunately, I've only got a hardcopy with me.

Basically he shows that any person, innately good or bad, can do evil things. By restricting guns from the general population, we can prevent those who would not normally go shooting people from doing so.

Again, I'll need some actual hard statistics for this point to be argued fairly.

If I have a gun in my hand? Shoot him in the foot, tie him up and call the cops. Simple, and no murder on my conscience. "Don't kill him" =/= "Let him kill"

When someone is pointing a gun at another or yourself, you don't have the time you need to make such a precise shot.

In all likelihood, if you shoot him, you will either miss or hit him in the torso. You might as well have said that you would shoot the gun out of his hand spaghetti western style.

[borkborkbork]

1. Um, yes? Criminal: someone who commits a crime. Hurr.

2. It's... not? And even if it WAS incredibly expensive, people would still get them, either through, I dunno, getting money and buying it, or uh, stealing. Hurr.

1. I was refering to the first-time cirminals. They are criminals after their act, not before.

2. People seem to have forgotten the word illegal in there. $40 in America is cheap for a gun, but guns are legal there. Furthermore, I was referring to that fact that expensive implies either rare, or the costs of getting them high.

For one thing, Singapore is extremely authoritarian. None of us (should) want that for our own nation.

You mentioned before that the only time a right should be taken from us, is when it infringes on other people's rights. Your gun infringes on people's rights to live.

I do not care what people 'need' or what you perceive that they need. Guns are a RIGHT because we are a free people who should have the option of doing whatever we want as long as we are mindful of the rights of others. You have done nothing to address that.

Since this isn't a class in sophistry, everyone bar you realised the above statement. We have a right to live. The arguement then turns into whether or not guns are infringing upon it enough for a ban.

I elect my representatives to represent my rights. I do not elect the police force, I do not elect the military, and most importantly I do not get to vote on the decisions they make.

And in any case, it doesn't matter because my lack of trust in the government is justified. Becoming complacent and assuming that your government has your best interests is a huge mistake. Their interest is power, and if I as a citizen get in the way of that then they will remove me.

You, as a part of the population of that nation, have the right to veto any decision they make, provided you can find enough backing from the people. Even if the government does not have your best interests in mind, they want to stay in power. This means addressing your concerns, else they be ousted from power, if not through riot/passive resistance, then at the next election.

Where does a normal guy get guns? Well, maybe the same place he gets marijuana. You see, getting guns off the black market is as ludicrously easy as it is to buy weed off the junkie dealer at the local high school. No, I dont do any drugs, but if I were so inclined I could get some very easily.

They grow their weed. Where's my gun tree?

Making something illegal does not prevent it whatsoever. And you still have to explain WHY it should be illegal in the first place.

You're still missing the point. Whether or not it would cause gun violence to decrease (this is not something I am conceding) is irrelevant. It is NOT enough to justify taking rights away from people.

See my second statement. Basing your whole arguements on rights is foolish. The right of free speech vs racism was a debate of the past.

And you cannot deny that removing gun rights is removing a right. It most certainly is, and just because you may or may not like a right has no bearing on whether or not it is a right to begin with. When you disallow people from doing something, you are restricting their rights. Arguing that gun violence may go down as a result of removing this right is just simply a terrible reason.

See one point above.

And if someone WANTS to defend themselves, they should be allowed to. In the United States you have a responsibility to call the police and the RIGHT to protect yourself. No one says you have to. You have the inalienable right to let anyone who would infringe on your rights take advantage of you, but you also have the right to not let them.

I'm not arguing that you can't defend yourself. Just don't do it with a gun.

Knife crimes did go up when guns were banned in both Australia and the UK.

Although I can't recall if guns were ever legal in Australia, I doubt that knife crimes went up to the point of eclipsing gun+knife crimes before the ban.

Guns are more dangerous than knives? All the better I have one of those to protect me with instead of a knife.

Better off reducing the chance that you see a gun, and then you can have a knive vs knife catfight where you have a bigger chance of getting out alive. But in any case, the rest of the topic has been about this, so I don't see the need to rebut this point any further.

And that point, whether true or false, is irrelevant no matter how you look at it.

I wrote that? O_o

It doesn't matter how you view murder, but what murder really is. Murder is killing someone without just cause. Killing someone that has invaded your home or is willing to hurt you or your family/friends is a just cause.

Willing to hurt family/friends might be a just cause. Killing someone for trepassing is harder to justify. Why can't you just restrain them? Shoot first, asking questions later is hard to justify.

Correlation does not equal causation. The United States of America is a more violent nation than the UK, for example. But blaming guns for the reason is drawing a conclusion from way too little evidence. You do not know why the US is more violent than the UK, and neither do I. But scapegoating guns is a logical fallacy.

I see you've either done a logic class, or a psychology class. And probably didn't listen hard enough. Correlation does not equal causation, is one of their favourite sayings. It actually does though, but the saying is warning against assuming direction of causation. To jog your memory, if A is correlated to B, then either A causes B, B causes A or C causes A and B.

If guns cause violence (A->B), then remove the guns

If violence people causes the use of guns, then you can't change the people, so you limit the effects by removing the guns.

If a 3rd factor is causing both the violent people and the use of guns...then you either deal wit that 3rd factor, or limit the effects by removing the guns.

Do not strawman the pro gun arguments.

I want guns because I want to trust MYSELF. Law enforcement will of course be called, but the person most responsible for my life is ME. But again, saying that all pro gun people 'dogmatically' stick to a certain view (when indeed its the anti gun people who wish to have the dogmatic government protect them) is to strawman us entirely. Dont do it.

1. Guns are as good for defense as the person holding them. Also, your hostage situation is unlikely in a home invasion scenario, unless you've seen too much Law and Order or something.

2. Preventing a crime by not allowing people to live their own lives is no way to prevent crime. My descriptor tag for this thread is 'Liberty vs Safety'. That was no accident. My argument is that all these petty safety arguments are unimportant in the face of our liberties in a free nation.

Strawman implies that I'm attacking a false construction of your arguements. Tell me, what is this false construction that I'm attacking? If I spot the error, I can attempt to rectify the mistake.

1) In a home invasion, the criminal will want to rob a house with no one in it. If he hops in while you're in, he's likely to bail anyway, gun or not. Guns are a means of attack. Using them as a means for defence means you must be willing to shoot, not just bluff.

2) Well if anything, I'd disagree with the word "safety". I'd replace it with Liberty vs Life. See my second point in this post anyway.

Also, saving yourself is better than letting the police save you for you. I have one life and I'll be damned if I will kneel down before my governing institution and beg for them to do what I ought to do myself. Guns are the right of everyone whether their government 'lets' them or not.

And here we can get into that problem of shooting a trepasser. It acts as a deterrant for others that would trespass, sure. But is that deterrant worth the life of a man? This is a Lockean arguement - because it is out home they were trespassing, we cannot be expected to rationally pass fair judgement/punishment upon them. Thus the need for a third party, the state, to do this.

I hope I didn't miss too much, but anyhow I just want to reiterate why I am pro gun:

1. Liberty is more important than (perceived) safety. Any arguments for the banning of guns based on the premise that there will be less gun crime is an inadequate response for why guns should be banned.

2. In order for the banning of guns to be reasonable, the owning of a gun must inherently tread on someone's rights. Since that's obviously not the case, there is no reasonable explanation to ban guns.

1) Arguements based on the premise of less gun crime come with the Lemma that rights that infringe on other rights should be taken away. Free speech vs racism.

2) If you have indeed taken a psychology class and not a logic one, I suggest you review notes on discriminative stimuli.

The ability to own guns makes us free just by the general principle of it. The ability to purchase and possess a gun is freedom by allowing me to dispose of some of my property in exchange for the property of another's through voluntary and mutual exchange. And as that weren't enough, the rest of your post hinges on the assumption that the guns be owned for self defense, which is not necessarily the case. A person may want to own a gun for any of a number of reasons, some of which may include collecting, sporting, and the previously mentioned self defense. Prohibiting guns because you do not feel that self defense is a valid reason for ownership by its very nature precludes the ownership of guns for recreational use at a fire range, hunting game, or simply because one admires them for their worksmanship.

Recreational usage of guns doesn't mean you have to own and carry it around with you all the time. Collecting and admiring can be done without the ammo. We're focusing on self-defence/crime here because that's the main reason they seem to be used. Even then though, using guns for recreation isn't really a justification for having guns, at least not as much as needing a knife for steak. If you want to use it though, feel free to press it, I'll elaborate.

Argument based on potential is shaky at best, a logical fallacy at worst. Consider for example an entirely analogous phrase, and it's implied conclusion. "You guys seem to be forgetting that a decent law-abiding citizen can turn into an alcoholic. Give the guy a bottle and you're only making things easier for him. [We should ban alcohol instead.]"

Not analogous. Left out a premise - that people's lives are on the line.

Furthermore, the fact that "unlike in Fire Emblem, real life doesn't have counter-attacks", precludes one of the major contributing factors towards self-defense ownership: deterrence. If a criminal has reason to suspect that a target may be well equipped to defend themselves, they are likely to rethink things.

Or plan it out more meticulously so that they get the surprise advantage.

The second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, encapsulates a deeper, more fundamental right. The right to revolution. This right is the ultimate check provided against tyrannical governments, and hopefully will never need be exercised, yet if you take away the right to keep and bear arms, you prevent the ability to ever exercise it, should it become necessary. We do not know what tomorrow may bring, so we must hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. To be sure, the order of the boxes must rightly be soap, ballot, then ammo, but if the last option is not available then come a truly despotic regime the citizenry is rendered helpless and complacent.

No, the nation relies on its people for its power. Passive resistance is enough to stop a constitutional democractic government from abusing it.

And the # of guns used for recreation >>> either. Your point?

I can't actually see the relevance of recreation to my point you're rebutting. Especially when it was used in a narrow context.

Okay, throughout this thread I've seen you harp on this Kitty Genovese thing a ridiculous number of times. From a quick look-over of the incident in question, it seems the man stabbed to incapacitate here, as the perpetrator went on to sexually violate her. As I understand it, rape is primarily a crime of control, so he must have wanted the victim alive and struggling. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to rape a corpse.

The guy was a necrophiliac.

In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, and whose intent is to kill, knives can be extremely deadly. This should be a non-issue, I honestly can't buy into any claim that all, most, or even many, stabbings have some sort of thirty minute grace period for the victim.

Two things to raise here: 30 min grace period, maybe not. But you have a longer period to live against a knife than a gun. Secondly, they need to know what they're doing. And the average goon that seems to be the problem is just going *stab*stab*stab*.

Furthermore, many gun shot wounds also may leave the victim alive for many minutes, or even hours, depending on factors such as bullet size, wound location, etc.

There is 1 place in the whole body that you can survive for hours from a gun wound. Somewhere on the left, near the stomach, I think. Someone else can go check it up, I don't study anatomy.

And making it smaller doesn't make crime go away.

I seem to remember someone pro-gun in the thread saying that if they could have a 1% extra chance to live, they'd take it. I echo that statement.

I would argue that the rate of assault and rape is high enough that I would rather retain our current somewhat higher homicide rate than have the same occur, but with America's population. But are you arguing that it's alright that Australia rates at the top of so many other forms of crime just because the person survived?

No, I was arguing that living is more important than anything else. I suppose I could have argued that our crimes rates are higher because we survive, but I don't think that'd work. Just survivng is enough for me.

In this case, you seem to be arguing that the mere prescence of other bystanders with guns is enough to deter people from commiting crimes. The problem is that most crimes down here, judging from the news, take place in situations with no bystanders. In any case, wouldn't everyone carrying a knife perform the same function?

It's easier to kill with a gun, but you in no way have to have to be some kind of practitioner of knife-fu to kill someone with a knife. It's pretty damn simple as well.

Nor can you be the average nerd that has just exploded because his girlfriend dumped him to go knifing a lot of people. Mass killings would not be possible with only knives.

So would I, but that doesn't make your crime rate acceptable in the slightest.

It's not acceptable, I agree. But if you agree that you'd rather robbed than dead, then it should follow that saving lives takes priorty of stopping other crime. Stop killings, then stop other crimes, one step at a time.

The obvious rebuttle that that would be that Australia's gunless since our creation and yet crime rates are so high, in which case I say that crimes rates have only risen in recent years, after post-war mass migration. They still need time to lower the crime, both through the educational system, and through law enforcement.

It's not acceptable in my eyes to disarm yourself so that the burglar, who is already a criminal has all the power. That's senseless, and only kowtowing to someone that is already intent on breaking the law. When a bad person has power, you shouldn't have to throw down your defenses to placate.

If it means sparing the lives of the innocent, so be it. Though it doesn't end when he gets away. Law enforcement picks up and chases them down.

On the flip side, you'd be willing to gamble everyone's life on your belief that the criminal cares whether someone lives or dies. And seeing as how you're against someone being able to use the proper means of defense, I don't find that a right form of thought.

I think this was still the bank situation. The criminal's goal is the get money. If someone resists, not only will he not get the money, he would get caught - unless he could stop the resistance (by showing he's serious and shooting the hostage). If no one resists in the first place, he would take the money and run.

And your country putting them near the top of their list isn't evidence of that.

Not my country. In any case, top priority doesn't mean that banning guns caused knife crimes to skyrocket. Neither of us are familiar enough with the UK to postulate why knife crimes would rise.

Because knives are easier to get.

Thank you. Knives are easier to get because guns are banned. The average goon couldn't be bothered to go get the gun, so they go for the knife. If they did have the gun, we'd have a lot more deaths.

Why the state, but not the people? Can't murderers be a part of the state as well?

They can be. But it's a lot rarer, perhaps due to the selection criteria for who gets to be a cop. I haven't heard of any cops going on killing sprees down here lately, though I think there was one in Hong Kong a few years ago. So 1 compared to however many shootings by normal people in America.

I deny that the state has some super power to detect craziness that can't be employed on everyone else that wants a firearm.

I assume this refers to the above point. Again, the rate of cops going nuts and killing people seem to be rather low. Though I can postulate an additional reason for this: Those working as cops have the psychological support necessary, and provided by the government, so that they don't snap. Or if they do, they snap nicely.

Can you back that claim?

Now that recreational gun usage has been raised, no I can't. However any gun bought for the purpose of self defence must also be bought with the intention to harm. If they were not willing to shoot anyone with it, then having the weapon is pointless.

Why does it not take into account the psychology?

No it doesn't. Essentially, this seems a flimsy effort to try and stop me from proving your retarded view incorrect based on made up psychology. By your logic, gun ban statistics anywhere can't be used if there's a next-door country that doesn't have them.

Perhaps I should define what I mean by psychology. In this case I mean the way people think. If someone tried to rob your house and you, with a gun, caught them, what would you do? This answer varies depending on the cultural upbringing of the person. One of the other posters in the thread seems to have suggested shooting them. Down here we just had someone wrestling them to the ground and calling the police instead.

Having a lower gun holding rate, but still being part of a gun culture does not take the above into account. A gun ban would include removing such teachings, which is why I've said before that the educational system is vital.

I think we could easily do that by educating everyone on the use of guns, and getting more guns in the hands of responsible people.

The problem here the word "responsible". Educating people on the use of guns only for them use that education on innocent people would not be fun.

Loading a gun takes place in a few seconds. Are you really arguing that if a crime occurs, no one has time to load their guns?

If you are caught in the criminal's line of sight - no you don't have time. If you happened to stumble upon the event, but the criminal didn't see you, you might have a chance. But then it's a shoot first, ask questions later unless you want to get back to the bank style situation. Which I suppose you might think is fine if you believe in capital punishment, but that's a different issue.

I didn't say that they wouldn't have time reaching any crime. I said that they would have a harder time reacting to many issues, because of the nature of knife crime.

If that's what you meant, then I concede the point. They would have a harder time reacting to many issues. And while arming the population could give them an easier time, I'm not sure it's worth the random mass shootings.

It seems to do well in other areas, where the crime rate is lower and guns aren't.

I think I addressed this above. But if not, that only works when other people with guns are nearby. Perhaps the problem down here is not the fact that we don't have many guns, but the fact our population density is so low.

Tell that to my dead Uncle.

Wait, you can't, because he was stabbed several times without any form of resistance.

I should've added the word 'usually' to that. Random knifings seem uncommon down here. There is usually a motive that isn't I'm angry, let's go knife.

And removing proper forms of defense is not going to completely solve this problem. Gun education and use is a better method to solving that issue.

Proper gun education won't solve the problem either, because guns are too quick to kill. I'm you know what you're doing, you've already killed one before anyone notices that you're on a rampage. I do agree that education is the solution, be it awareness programs or moral conditioning.

...How would that at all change if it's an abuse of power?

What do you mean by 'that'? If a constitutional democratic government abuses its power, the people get mad and riot. Then the government stops and fixes the situation. That's the theory behind it, anyway - I'm not sure how the Americans implement that theory.

And I never said it was cool to sacrifice the hostage. Stop with your fucking ridiculousness.

Then please clarify what you meant by "Shoot him repeatedly". I assume you meant shoot the criminal repeatedly, which in turn implies that the criminal will shoot the hostage.

How do you know he won't just indiscriminately kill a few, rather than taking a hostage? Why are you resigning yourself to bow down to the criminal, rather than finding better ways for everyone to be able to stop him?

No one takes a hostage seriously unless a) The criminal is willing to shoot the him/her but B) the criminal is willing to spare the hostage if you meet his demands. Indiscriminative killing is either going to get you killed in a place where people have guns, or inspire the the law enforcers to work overtime to get your ass.

Then why don't you call for the more thorough training of those significantly higher number, so that they can act as effectively as the state?

Because we can't discriminate between them.

But what does this say for the people that do get the gun? Let's take a look:

Back at my High School, Santana High, there was a shooting. He killed two and badly injured thirteen others. These were indiscriminate attacks; he didn't care about hostages, or sparing people. The same occurred to Pearl High School, and instead of many more being injured, the shooter was stopped by an assistant principle, armed with a Colt .45.

Would you happen to know where and how long it took them to get the gun? My point is that banning guns removes this type of shooting. Or at least lowers it to the point that it's a rarity. Like I said before, when was the last time we had a mass shooting down here?

Again, I'll need some actual hard statistics for this point to be argued fairly.

I think this is the one we need. Note it's not a mass survey of criminals, since this type of testing is expensive. Results must have been statistically signficant though, for it to be cited in a paper.

- A random 20 Californian murders were interviewed and tested. Half turned up as the typical criminal: Lack of impulse control, extroversion, long history of violence etc. The other half were the different: normal impulse control, no criminal record before the current homicide, gentle to mild dispositions.

Edit: Adding on the second half

Edited November 26, 2008 by borkborkbork

[Rei]

Aside from hunting rifles, guns are manufactured and intended for one use only: to kill another human being.

The real question here, is the murder of a human ever justified?

I think not. Thus my aversion to guns.

The bold statement is incoorect. Shooting someone in the arm with a .22 won't kill them. Hell, unless they hit a major organ or area, a shot from a .22 (most common ammo) won't kill. Guns in general aren't for malicious intent.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Rei

[Duff Ostrich]

You mentioned before that the only time a right should be taken from us, is when it infringes on other people's rights. Your gun infringes on people's rights to live.

No it does not. If I unlawfully shoot someone with the gun, I have infringed on that person's right to live. Not only will I be punished accordingly (if convicted of the crime, of course) I will also have my right to own guns taken away.

Since this isn't a class in sophistry, everyone bar you realised the above statement. We have a right to live. The arguement then turns into whether or not guns are infringing upon it enough for a ban.

Ha, I had to look up what the word 'sophist' meant.

It has yet to be established that guns infringe on the right to live. How do you come to this conclusion? Because people can utilize guns to kill other people? That is quite a stretch. It's too much of a stretch for me to buy at all.

Our rights are not endangered based what people might do. They are endangered when someone or something actively works to infringe our rights. Certainly that is exactly what the banning of guns is?

You, as a part of the population of that nation, have the right to veto any decision they make, provided you can find enough backing from the people. Even if the government does not have your best interests in mind, they want to stay in power. This means addressing your concerns, else they be ousted from power, if not through riot/passive resistance, then at the next election.

Yes, I can do these things. But the system is not perfect, and I do not trust the intentions of any of them, whether I voted for them or not.

They grow their weed. Where's my gun tree?

If not marijuana, then acid. If we want to talk about hard drugs, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. These can all be attained very easily, yet they are illegal. And in fact, the US has a very aggressive anti drug policy... that just so happens to not work.

See my second statement. Basing your whole arguements on rights is foolish. The right of free speech vs racism was a debate of the past.

Apparantly not, if you think racism is illegal. Being belligerent and doing illegal activities (for racist reasons or otherwise) is can get you in trouble. But can I say "I like this race better than another" or "I like this culture better than another" or "I like this religion better than another"? Yes I most certainly can, and there's nothing the law can do about it. Would you honestly have it so that they could?

Racist beliefs and tendencies may be illconceived and even immoral. But illegal? Not really.

In any case, rights is what this issue is all about. And on that note, I missed your comment about Hobbes earlier. Let me say, I have read Hobbes Leviatan, (in a Euro History course back in high school) and in all my internet debates from then on I came to use the phrase 'Hobbes was a loser' or 'Hobbes was a miserable old man' because of his defeatist perspective on human ability to take care of themselves. John Locke is way cooler.

I'm not arguing that you can't defend yourself. Just don't do it with a gun.

Yes you most certainly are. You are arguing that the government should greatly restrict the means with which I choose to protect myself. If it's my house broken into, or my family in danger, I can and will use a gun to defend it because it is the simplest and most efficient form of protection.

And when it comes to that kind of scenario, I would be a moron to choose anything else.

Although I can't recall if guns were ever legal in Australia, I doubt that knife crimes went up to the point of eclipsing gun+knife crimes before the ban.

I am certain guns were legal in Australia at one time. Whether or not knife crimes raised quite that much is not something I am aware. You are probably right on that point.

Better off reducing the chance that you see a gun, and then you can have a knive vs knife catfight where you have a bigger chance of getting out alive. But in any case, the rest of the topic has been about this, so I don't see the need to rebut this point any further.

I think I missed something here...

I wrote that? O_o

Err... I'm not a used to this whole quote tag thing yet. I'm used to the cheap gametalk.com method method of quoting.

Willing to hurt family/friends might be a just cause. Killing someone for trepassing is harder to justify. Why can't you just restrain them? Shoot first, asking questions later is hard to justify.

Trespassing on my property (I'm talking breaking into my house) could put anyone in my family in danger. No, I would like to avoid hurting the guy if he's just a robber or something. But just 'restraining' him or her may not be within my power to do. I'm 6' 1'' and 160 lbs. I'm no heavyweight champ, and I could be out muscled by any guy who happens to be bigger than me. How would the average woman restrain a robber (most of whom would be male)? They wouldn't have a chance.

A gun puts them on even footing.

I see you've either done a logic class, or a psychology class. And probably didn't listen hard enough. Correlation does not equal causation, is one of their favourite sayings. It actually does though, but the saying is warning against assuming direction of causation. To jog your memory, if A is correlated to B, then either A causes B, B causes A or C causes A and B.

If guns cause violence (A->B), then remove the guns

If violence people causes the use of guns, then you can't change the people, so you limit the effects by removing the guns.

If a 3rd factor is causing both the violent people and the use of guns...then you either deal wit that 3rd factor, or limit the effects by removing the guns.

I know exactly what it means (logic class, good guess). It would have been more accurate for me to say that 'correlation does not necessarily equal causation'. In this case, higher rates of crime in the United States than the UK does not necessitate that the legality of guns in the US was the cause.

But I'm glad you know what it means.

Strawman implies that I'm attacking a false construction of your arguements. Tell me, what is this false construction that I'm attacking? If I spot the error, I can attempt to rectify the mistake.

1) In a home invasion, the criminal will want to rob a house with no one in it. If he hops in while you're in, he's likely to bail anyway, gun or not. Guns are a means of attack. Using them as a means for defence means you must be willing to shoot, not just bluff.

2) Well if anything, I'd disagree with the word "safety". I'd replace it with Liberty vs Life. See my second point in this post anyway.

What is the false construction? Well, you claimed that we all adhere to 'dogmatic' pessimism, and that we think law enforcement was a joke. None of those things were said or implied.

Rather, believing that people are not able or responsible enough to be able to own guns is pessimistic. Thomas Hobbes was the penultimate pessimist, btw.

And here we can get into that problem of shooting a trepasser. It acts as a deterrant for others that would trespass, sure. But is that deterrant worth the life of a man? This is a Lockean arguement - because it is out home they were trespassing, we cannot be expected to rationally pass fair judgement/punishment upon them. Thus the need for a third party, the state, to do this.

Aha, appealing to Locke. Not bad. But I would argue that since it is my home that is being trespassed, it is my responsibility to make the judgement on the action that should be taken, as long as it is within the realm of reasonability.

1) Arguements based on the premise of less gun crime come with the Lemma that rights that infringe on other rights should be taken away. Free speech vs racism.

2) If you have indeed taken a psychology class and not a logic one, I suggest you review notes on discriminative stimuli.

1. I already addressed this. Assuming that free speech is less important than hushing up racism is entirely incorrect.

2. No Psyche, unfortunately. I'll look it up regardless.

I'm tired. I hope I didn't mess up any of the quote tags.

[Crystal Shards]

1. I was refering to the first-time cirminals. They are criminals after their act, not before.

2. People seem to have forgotten the word illegal in there. $40 in America is cheap for a gun, but guns are legal there. Furthermore, I was referring to that fact that expensive implies either rare, or the costs of getting them high.

1. "Criminals don't make up the every single person that uses a gun for crime." Criminals are, by definition, people who commit crimes. So what you said was, "People who commit crimes don't make up every single person that uses a gun to for crime." If you commit a crime, whether you use a gun or not, you are a criminal. It doesn't matter whether this was your first time or your hundredth time. They are criminals as soon as they start committing the crime. Either way, I fail to see the point of you bringing this up, as it doesn't add to the discussion.

2. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's hard to get. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.

[Esau of Isaac]

I seem to remember someone pro-gun in the thread saying that if they could have a 1% extra chance to live, they'd take it. I echo that statement.

You would take that at the cost of having your crime rate be one of the highest in the world?

You're insane. Taking away guns didn't fix anything, you still have an amazingly bad situation. It would be better to let everyone know how to defend themselves, and I wager the gun crime would plummet.

No, I was arguing that living is more important than anything else. I suppose I could have argued that our crimes rates are higher because we survive, but I don't think that'd work. Just survivng is enough for me.

That's great for you, but your morbidly high crime rate is completely unacceptable, and the problem plainly hasn't been solved by removing guns.

In this case, you seem to be arguing that the mere prescence of other bystanders with guns is enough to deter people from commiting crimes.

I would wager that the presence of guns in everyone';s hands is more of a deterrence than removing guns from the ones that will shoot someone in a short and unnatural fit of rage.

Nor can you be the average nerd that has just exploded because his girlfriend dumped him to go knifing a lot of people. Mass killings would not be possible with only knives.

Wait, what?

It's not acceptable, I agree. But if you agree that you'd rather robbed than dead, then it should follow that saving lives takes priorty of stopping other crime. Stop killings, then stop other crimes, one step at a time.

Or stop both simultaneously, rather than vainly trying to solve one with a line of very naive logic.

The obvious rebuttle that that would be that Australia's gunless since our creation and yet crime rates are so high, in which case I say that crimes rates have only risen in recent years, after post-war mass migration. They still need time to lower the crime, both through the educational system, and through law enforcement.

I doubt that the migration that Australia is experiencing is the reason, or even the largest contribution, to it having such an incredible crime rate.

If it means sparing the lives of the innocent, so be it. Though it doesn't end when he gets away. Law enforcement picks up and chases them down.

The problem is that you're removing weapons from individuals that can still make the on-the-spot decision to take the situation in a non-violent manner. When everyone is armed with a gun, the people can still do the exact same thing you're thinking of. The difference is that in the situation where there is a fair opening, the criminal can be taken out in a much quicker and efficient manner.

I think this was still the bank situation. The criminal's goal is the get money. If someone resists, not only will he not get the money, he would get caught - unless he could stop the resistance (by showing he's serious and shooting the hostage). If no one resists in the first place, he would take the money and run.

And a situation in which the individuals let him take the money and run is not impossible in a society with guns. He'd just be taken out at the most convenient time, and in a much better fashion than that without.

Not my country. In any case, top priority doesn't mean that banning guns caused knife crimes to skyrocket. Neither of us are familiar enough with the UK to postulate why knife crimes would rise.

I am familiar enough with the UK's crime system to postulate that the knife crime rose because guns were banned, and therefore firearms were more difficult to obtain.

Thank you. Knives are easier to get because guns are banned. The average goon couldn't be bothered to go get the gun, so they go for the knife. If they did have the gun, we'd have a lot more deaths.

I never once argued against the notion of guns being more difficult to obtain in a society where guns are banned. I would be crazy to do such a thing.

They can be. But it's a lot rarer, perhaps due to the selection criteria for who gets to be a cop.

So you would say that it's too difficult for a criminal to get a job as a cop?

I haven't heard of any cops going on killing sprees down here lately, though I think there was one in Hong Kong a few years ago. So 1 compared to however many shootings by normal people in America.

I am hoping that you are aware that the number of "normal people" vastly outweighs the number of police in America.

I assume this refers to the above point. Again, the rate of cops going nuts and killing people seem to be rather low. Though I can postulate an additional reason for this: Those working as cops have the psychological support necessary, and provided by the government, so that they don't snap. Or if they do, they snap nicely.

You still haven't answered why anything that is provided to the police through the state to keep them from killing people (because crazy people can't be cops, of course) can't be done in the same manner for those that want to buy firearms.

Now that recreational gun usage has been raised, no I can't. However any gun bought for the purpose of self defence must also be bought with the intention to harm. If they were not willing to shoot anyone with it, then having the weapon is pointless.

Um...is this like saying that if I buy a bat, I must intend to kill a man with it? Not all guns are even bought with the idea of self defense, and those that are aren't bought with the actual intention to hurt or kill another person. Rather, those that are are bought with the preparedness to defend themselves.

The way you phrase it, every gun owner is out to hurt another person. That's an offensive and ignorant slap to the face of anyone that owns a firearm.

Perhaps I should define what I mean by psychology. In this case I mean the way people think. If someone tried to rob your house and you, with a gun, caught them, what would you do? This answer varies depending on the cultural upbringing of the person. One of the other posters in the thread seems to have suggested shooting them. Down here we just had someone wrestling them to the ground and calling the police instead.

So, are you actually willing to put forth the claim that people in America won't wrestle a criminal to the ground and restrain them?

Having a lower gun holding rate, but still being part of a gun culture does not take the above into account. A gun ban would include removing such teachings, which is why I've said before that the educational system is vital.

...What? You think that just because guns are still present, that everyone will automatically be indisposed to kill someone that breaks in their house?

Aside from the total madness of that, why are you even arguing this as a statistic when it would be robberies of a person breaking into another's home? Seriously, how can you even make such an argument?

The problem here the word "responsible". Educating people on the use of guns only for them use that education on innocent people would not be fun.

And? It would also not be fun to let people that strangle others to death have arms. That doesn't mean that we should remove arms from everyone but select people.

Education is the first step to lowering crime by letting others know the correct and proper use of firearms. I would wager that there are more responsible people than criminals, and I very highly doubt that you would disagree with that notion.

If you are caught in the criminal's line of sight - no you don't have time.

But seeing as how every man over twenty has a rifle, that's not a problem.

If you happened to stumble upon the event, but the criminal didn't see you, you might have a chance. But then it's a shoot first, ask questions later unless you want to get back to the bank style situation.

Because in a situation where someone opened fire, the first thing that everyone would do would not be to load their firearms? You think that militarily trained men wouldn't do this out of pure reflex, if nothing else?

Seriously, your argument is so lacking that I am simply amazed. I don't know if I will ever hear another one as ridiculous as this.

Which I suppose you might think is fine if you believe in capital punishment, but that's a different issue.

I don't, but thanks for another spit in the face Champ.

If that's what you meant, then I concede the point. They would have a harder time reacting to many issues. And while arming the population could give them an easier time, I'm not sure it's worth the random mass shootings.

Despite the fact that random mass shootings are practically non-existent in societies where everyone is properly educated on the use of firearms?

I think I addressed this above. But if not, that only works when other people with guns are nearby. Perhaps the problem down here is not the fact that we don't have many guns, but the fact our population density is so low.

Then how would this be an argument for a country like America where the population density is much higher?

How is Australia going to solve this problem, if its population density is lower?

I should've added the word 'usually' to that. Random knifings seem uncommon down here. There is usually a motive that isn't I'm angry, let's go knife.

It wasn't a random knifing to kill him for entertainment. He was stabbed repeatedly and his wallet stolen for money. There was no "Give me your wallet and I'll let you go" situation.

I don't like hurting the majority when the minority causes problems. Because the majority can be stronger, and can deal with the minority, if they have the right amount of power. You're not helping people by stopping them from obtaining guns, you're hurting them, because it doesn't equalize the playing field. It's putting an inefficient band-aid over a wound that needs stitches.

Proper gun education won't solve the problem either, because guns are too quick to kill. I'm you know what you're doing, you've already killed one before anyone notices that you're on a rampage. I do agree that education is the solution, be it awareness programs or moral conditioning.

A knife can kill quickly as well. In fact, one can possibly kill more than one in a short time before anyone notices if they kill correctly.

What do you mean by 'that'? If a constitutional democratic government abuses its power, the people get mad and riot. Then the government stops and fixes the situation. That's the theory behind it, anyway - I'm not sure how the Americans implement that theory.

That's not how it works, if it were that easy then any terrible government would have never taken hold. Just because there isn't a massive riot doesn't make what the government does not an abuse of its power; you'd have to be absolutely out of your mind to make such a statement.

Then please clarify what you meant by "Shoot him repeatedly". I assume you meant shoot the criminal repeatedly, which in turn implies that the criminal will shoot the hostage.

Where does that imply that the criminal shoots the hostage?

And this was more supposed to be a statement of what would occur if he drew a weapon, and indeed was not meant when he had a gun to a hostage's head. Though if an individual were careful enough, they could take care of the situation even while he is holding the hostage.

No one takes a hostage seriously unless a) The criminal is willing to shoot the him/her but cool.gif the criminal is willing to spare the hostage if you meet his demands. Indiscriminative killing is either going to get you killed in a place where people have guns, or inspire the the law enforcers to work overtime to get your ass.

What are you talking about? I just asked how you would know if, instead of taking a hostage, the criminal were to indiscriminately kill a few present to instill a sense of fear. It's just as effective --moreso, in fact-- so where are you getting off disarming everyone else to hope that a person that is planning on hurting others already has the decency to spare them?

Because we can't discriminate between them.

I attempted to parse this statement and failed.

What the hell are you talking about?

Would you happen to know where and how long it took them to get the gun? My point is that banning guns removes this type of shooting. Or at least lowers it to the point that it's a rarity. Like I said before, when was the last time we had a mass shooting down here?

You completely missed the point; the massacre was prevented because someone had a weapon on-hand to stop the person. It took him a few minutes to get the gun, but he saved lives in his action. Had guns been banned, and the man used a knife, the situation would have been the same. The only difference is that now no one would have the proper means by which to fight back.

I think this is the one we need. Note it's not a mass survey of criminals, since this type of testing is expensive. Results must have been statistically signficant though, for it to be cited in a paper.

- A random 20 Californian murders were interviewed and tested. Half turned up as the typical criminal: Lack of impulse control, extroversion, long history of violence etc. The other half were the different: normal impulse control, no criminal record before the current homicide, gentle to mild dispositions.

Where is the evidence that they would not have killed if a gun were not there?

[General Spoon]

If guns were banned, there would be an inexplicable increase in the number of deer related car accidents.

[VincentASM]

General Spoon, you don't need to repeat yourself. I'm sure everyone heard you the first time.

Besides, if nobody's commented on it, it probably means nobody cares. I could be wrong though...

[Jyosua]

Hay guyz, I has dis gr8t ideer, letz ban gunz!

Then nobody will have guns right? It's not as if there's a way to get guns illegally, and it's not as if people still had alcohol back in the days of prohibition, right?

</sarcasm>

[Rei]

General Spoon, you don't need to repeat yourself. I'm sure everyone heard you the first time.

Besides, if nobody's commented on it, it probably means nobody cares. I could be wrong though...

For the most part, you're right.

And banning guns altogether is a dumb idea. I think we've already established that.