Gun Control

[QazokRouge5]

You guys all know the story... so what do you think?

I wont give my guns up until I die. They keep me alive. But what about the rest of you?

[Judge]

I own "Guns"

Yet I am pro gun control.

Guns should be licenced and held securely.

Mine are kept in a gun Safe, the Firing mechanisms are kept in my safe deposit box at the bank, and ammunition is held at the Rifle Club.

That is how all weapons should be kept.

Also in the UK, you cannot own a weapon unless you have somewhere to shoot, are a member of a Gun Club, and are of good character. (NO CRIMINAL RECORD WHATSOEVER)
Prior to obtaining a Weapon, you have to have your self vetted by the Police, have your weapon storage areas examined, and the Police can turn up anytime and request to examine your weapons and storage areas.

If it was the same everywhere, there would be a lot less illegally held weapons, and weapons in the hands of innapropriate persons.

[Dante Hicks]

You can't stop crimes by banning things.

I'd go for a gradual abolishment of most gun laws. I'm happy for guns to be kept out of young childrens hands (as they're not fully rational beings, etc) as well as the mentally ill and the like. Also guns on sale would need to meet certain trading requirements to make sure they don't randomly go off in people's faces, etc.

Oh, and I've never owned a gun, and even if I could (legally) probably never would.

[Mong]

This isn't a debate, it's a GD post with a poll.

[Snurx]

I dont want guns, but not gun control either..its a hard dilemma, but luckily, in Norway, the criminals dont have guns. Its just the wacko soldiers that live at home and kills themselvs.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by QazokRouge5
You guys all know the story... so what do you think?

I wont give my guns up until I die. They keep me alive. But what about the rest of you?

Do you live in Liverpool ?

Vaio

[[GAP]Obiwan]

Is it illegal to have a lightsabre?

Lightsabre > gun

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Judge
I own "Guns"

Yet I am pro gun control.

Guns should be licenced and held securely.

Mine are kept in a gun Safe, the Firing mechanisms are kept in my safe deposit box at the bank, and ammunition is held at the Rifle Club.

That is how all weapons should be kept.

Also in the UK, you cannot own a weapon unless you have somewhere to shoot, are a member of a Gun Club, and are of good character. (NO CRIMINAL RECORD WHATSOEVER)
Prior to obtaining a Weapon, you have to have your self vetted by the Police, have your weapon storage areas examined, and the Police can turn up anytime and request to examine your weapons and storage areas.

If it was the same everywhere, there would be a lot less illegally held weapons, and weapons in the hands of innapropriate persons.

Erm. This defeats the entire point in having a gun. A gun is primarilly an instrument of self-defence, not a toy. Also, I dont think youve fully thought through your "making more things illegal will reduce the amount of illegal things owned" point.

Anyway, I dont really see the fascination a lot of people seem to have with guns (same with cars really). I do completely oppose gun control of course, but I wouldnt start collecting rifles and semi-automatics if the laws were repealed.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by QazokRouge5
You guys all know the story... so what do you think?

I wont give my guns up until I die. They keep me alive. But what about the rest of you?

Excuse me? They keep you alive? If you're in the army, or use them for hunting for food, I'd say OK. But really, in a world like this you won't need any guns to stay alive.

I'm pro-gun control. I don't see why any civilian should have guns or have access to guns.
What's the chance of someone infiltrating your house (ie: how often do you think you will standing infront of an armed robber)? And how often will an armed robber have a gun because he has free access to it (ie: access not being controlled)?

I believe if you do the maths, you will come to the conclusion that having guns will do more harm than good.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
Excuse me? They keep you alive? If you're in the army, or use them for hunting for food, I'd say OK. But really, in a world like this you won't need any guns to stay alive.

I'm pro-gun control. I don't see why any civilian should have guns or have access to guns.
What's the chance of someone infiltrating your house (ie: how often do you think you will standing infront of an armed robber)? And how often will an armed robber have a gun because he has free access to it (ie: access not being controlled)?

Why does the burden of proof lie on people who want to own guns? Youre the one that wants the state to deny people the right to defend themselves, its up to you to provide evidence that this is a good thing, not them.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

I believe if you do the maths, you will come to the conclusion that having guns will do more harm than good.

post source plz

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Why does the burden of proof lie on people who want to own guns? Youre the one that wants the state to deny people the right to defend themselves, its up to you to provide evidence that this is a good thing, not them.

Is it nescesary for people to defend themselves with guns? Is it nescesary to put guns in houses where they can be accessed by confused, teenage children who incidentally knows how to open dads locker?
I'm sure the concept of "police" was invented to protect people against any harm that could be done against them. It should never be the intention to encourage people to pick up their guns and make their own laws, in a dangerous situation or not.
Thereby, having a gun doesn't directly mean you can use it to protect yourself (ie: robber cathes you by surprise while guns still are locked away). Or do you think that gun owners walk around with their guns 24/7?

post source plz

I have no source. Hence I said "I believe if". But it seems rational enough to me to believe that if the tools to kill are placed in peoples hands, that people will use them.

[Vanilla]

In the uk you can't have a gun greater than .22 calibre and it must be kept in the secure safe at the gun club unless you have a specific permit to transport it from one location to another.

Even our olypic althletes have to obide by these rules. Often flying to other countries simply to train with the proper calibre rifles.

I found this interesting

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335

[pablissimo]

In the UK there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own a gun for their personal protection. I like guns, we did a lot of shooting in school, I'm planning on joining the Uni rifle club next year if I can get off my ass. They're good for sport, there's skill involved, 'etc'.

In the US there is only one reason for owning a gun: to protect yourself, your home, your family against others who have guns. Which is a whole lotta people given possession of a firearm is legal and written into the damn constitution. If firearms were declared illegal in the same way that they are in the UK overnight, assuming that everyone willingly or otherwise handed in their weapons (unlikely), there would be no reason for anyone else to own a firearm in the US except for the reasons UK people do: sport, hunting, recreation.

Nobody needs a gun in a county where nobody else (or a very slim minority) own them.

[Vanilla]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
Or do you think that gun owners walk around with their guns 24/7?

America has conceal carry licenses in many states, many people do.

Also in Israel they do, any member of the IDF carries their AK47 around with them everywhere, literally everywhere. Apart from terrorism they have very little crime.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
Is it nescesary for people to defend themselves with guns?

The right to do someone implicitly implies the right to own the tools needed to achieve it. If people have the right to self defence (which they do), then they must logically the right to own the means to defend themselves. In todays world, the best way for an individual to defend himself is with a firearm.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

Is it nescesary to put guns in houses where they can be accessed by confused, teenage children who incidentally knows how to open dads locker?

No. How often does this happen? Do countries with lax gun control laws have large amounts of incidents where "children shoot themselves with their dads gun"?

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

I'm sure the concept of "police" was invented to protect people against any harm that could be done against them.

No. The concept of "police" was 'invented' for retroactive force - ie force after the event. If I am being mugged, the police cannot help me - they arent there. If someone has broken into my house, then the police cannot help me - they arent there. Police are only a help after the event has happened and the crime has been reported - they are of no use while the crime is occuring, and this is why people still have the right to self defence (and the right to own the means of self defence) in countries that have a police force.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

It should never be the intention to encourage people to pick up their guns and make their own laws, in a dangerous situation or not.

I agree, but defending yourself against an agressor has nothing to do with 'making up your own laws'. If people were encouraged to hunt down people who committed a crime against them rather than reporting them to the police, then youd have a point. However, having guns doesnt encourage this.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

Thereby, having a gun doesn't directly mean you can use it to protect yourself (ie: robber cathes you by surprise while guns still are locked away). Or do you think that gun owners walk around with their guns 24/7?

Of course not, but it gives them a better chance of defending themselves. Also, simply having guns in wide circulation will generally reduce the amount of petty crimes. Even if only 20% of people carry guns, this will still make a potential criminal less likely to attack someone. How will he know if his intended victim has a gun? How will he know if the occupant of the house he is planning on breaking into is armed? He wont of course, and this will surely deter him from committing the crime.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

I have no source. Hence I said "I believe if". But it seems rational enough to me to believe that if the tools to kill are placed in peoples hands, that people will use them.

Countries with tight control laws do not, in general, have significantly lower crime rates than those with lax laws. There is no evidence whatsoever at a global scale that gun control laws help reduce crime, and no logical reason that they would. If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns; not their victims.

[Vanilla]

Originally posted by pablissimo
[b]

Nobody [b]needs a gun in a county where nobody else (or a very slim minority) own them.

You should pay a trip to London.

Having a gun isnt about having one because someone else has one. It's a lethal deterrant. A burglar may carry a knife into a house, but he'd be a fool to challenge someone with a gun.

If the houseowner didn't have a gun, where would the burglar stop at silencing the man? Injury?death? Once the man is dead would he silence the wife who'se about to scream and the kids who are waking up?

I, like many people, saw it unjust that they were banned. An action of one, punished thousands.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by pablissimo
In the UK there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own a gun for their personal protection.

What about the most rapidly growing crime rate in the Western world? Or doesnt that count for anything?

Originally posted by pablissimo

In the US there is only one reason for owning a gun: to protect yourself, your home, your family against others who have guns.

Not against others who dont have guns?

Originally posted by pablissimo
If firearms were declared illegal in the same way that they are in the UK overnight, assuming that everyone willingly or otherwise handed in their weapons (unlikely), there would be no reason for anyone else to own a firearm in the US except for the reasons UK people do: sport, hunting, recreation..

What about the crime rate that would most likely spiral out of control, just like it has in practically every country that has implemented a firearm ban?

Originally posted by pablissimo

Nobody needs a gun in a county where nobody else (or a very slim minority) own them.

Nobody "needs" a gun, but that doesnt mean they dont have the right to own them if they choose to. A government-enforced ban on firearms is generally one of the first steps in establishing a totalitarian state (eg britain/nazi germany(lol)/etc), because its the first sign that a government wants to 'rule' over its people rather than to govern them.

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What about the most rapidly growing crime rate in the Western world? Or doesnt that count for anything?

Crime is rising in the UK. Instead of spending money attracting people to the police force and enforcing the law properly/better, let's give people the ability to take the law into their own hands.

Doesn't sound like the most sound of arguments to me.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Not against other people who dont have guns?

Where do you draw the line? If you get mugged in the street and lose your wallet, and shoot the mugger in the back as he escapes, killing him, was this a just thing to do? You thought your life was in danger, so you took action. Over a wallet. When your life probably wasn't in danger.

What can I say, I'm a fan of natural selection.

Originally posted by Nodrog
What about the crime rate that would most likely spiral out of control, just like it has in practically every country that has implemented a firearm ban??

I used to live in a rough part of Liverpool. Crime wasn't the lowest in the country shall we say, but at least I didn't walk home wondering if today was the day I was going to get shot by some wanker in a dark alley.

Equating death and permanent injury from shooting with other less-serious crimes such as theft, mugging, assault is illogical.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Nobody "needs" a gun, but that doesnt mean they dont have the right to own them if they choose to.

Where do you draw the line on the right to bear arms? Pistols? Sub-machineguns? Rifles? Tanks?

I question the logic in saying that men have the right to bear arms, a God-given right in the view of many, and yet limit just what arms they are allowed. Why is an assault rifle outlawed but a pistol not? How can you hold a view such as 'people have the right to own a gun' but concurrently hold the view that the guns they're allowed to own should be restricted?

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Vanilla
You should pay a trip to London.

Having a gun isnt about having one because someone else has one. It's a lethal deterrant. A burglar may carry a knife into a house, but he'd be a fool to challenge someone with a gun.

If the houseowner didn't have a gun, where would the burglar stop at silencing the man? Injury?death? Once the man is dead would he silence the wife who'se about to scream and the kids who are waking up?

I, like many people, saw it unjust that they were banned. An action of one, punished thousands.

Please explain to me exactly how many cases of a knife-weilding burglar killing a homeowner to stop themselves being rumbled there have been recently.

Hundreds? Didn't think so. The number of cases such as that is small, the chances are that when discovered a burglar will run like a bastard, it's not worth their while getting into a fight, armed or not, they'll flee.

Statistics.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

What about the most rapidly growing crime rate in the Western world? Or doesnt that count for anything?

do you think a rapidly growing crime rate would be halted/slowed by the relaxation of gun control laws?

What about the crime rate that would most likely spiral out of control, just like it has in practically every country that has implemented a firearm ban?

got any figures on this? ive seen a lot of mention of firearms related crimes increasing in the UK since a ban, but the fact is if you were to lower the speedlimit on roads to 20 mp/h nationwide, then speeding offences would increase enourmously.

Nobody "needs" a gun, but that doesnt mean they dont have the right to own them if they choose to. A government-enforced ban on firearms is generally one of the first steps in establishing a totalitarian state (eg britain/nazi germany(lol)/etc), because its the first sign that a government wants to 'rule' over its people rather than to govern them.

just because gun control has been a policy of past totalitarian regimes, it doesnt mean that gun control leads to totalitarian regimes.

[Vanilla]

Originally posted by pablissimo
Please explain to me exactly how many cases of a knife-weilding burglar killing a homeowner to stop themselves being rumbled there have been recently.

Hundreds? Didn't think so. The number of cases such as that is small, the chances are that when discovered a burglar will run like a bastard, it's not worth their while getting into a fight, armed or not, they'll flee.

Statistics.

It was an example. I wonder if I gave five different scenarious you'd ask 'how often that happens'.

You can't put a statistic on the level of protection.

With guns in houses it would be a deterrent. A burgler would not know if a house contains a gun.

What about George harrison? Stabbed in the chest by an intruder. The Guys wife had to hit him with a vase.

It's not about how often something happens that should dictate people rights. Nor should the actions of one cause the government to punish thousands. It would be like banning live attendance at football matches because of football hooligans.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by pablissimo
Crime is rising in the UK. Instead of spending money attracting people to the police force and enforcing the law properly/better, let's give people the ability to take the law into their own hands.

sigh. Yet again, retroactive force != force at time of crime. You could have the biggest police force the world has ever seen, but it still wouldnt be the slightest bit of use to a person in the process of being mugged. A gun would.

Sometimes you just have to admit that programs are fundamentally flawed, and that "throwing more money at them" is nothing more than lightly papering the cracks.

Originally posted by pablissimo

Where do you draw the line? If you get mugged in the street and lose your wallet, and shoot the mugger in the back as he escapes, killing him, was this a just thing to do?

If he was running away with your wallet, then of course you shouldnt shoot him in the back - just the leg would do. Obviously if he in the process of actually mugging you, youd have the right to do whatever it took to secure your safety.

Originally posted by pablissimo

I used to live in a rough part of Liverpool. Crime wasn't the lowest in the country shall we say, but at least I didn't walk home wondering if today was the day I was going to get shot by some wanker in a dark alley.

Ask an American if they "walk home wondering if theyre going to be shot from a dark alley". I reckon most would say "no".

Originally posted by pablissimo

Equating death and permanent injury from shooting with other less-serious crimes such as theft, mugging, assault is illogical.

I dont see what you mean

Originally posted by pablissimo

Where do you draw the line on the right to bear arms? Pistols? Sub-machineguns? Rifles? Tanks?

Thats a side-issue - the question of where to draw the line is one of the last things that should be decided, after people have admitted that citizens have the right to defend themselves, and the state doesnt have the right to arbitrarily enforce whatever laws it chooses to denying private citizens the ability to defend themselves. In my opinion, anything that is primarilly a weapon of self-defence should be allowed. Pistols and rifles yes, sub-machineguns maybe, tanks no.

Originally posted by pablissimo

I question the logic in saying that men have the right to bear arms, a God-given right in the view of many, and yet limit just what arms they are allowed. Why is an assault rifle outlawed but a pistol not? How can you hold a view such as 'people have the right to own a gun' but concurrently hold the view that the guns they're allowed to own should be restricted?

I dont.

Also, people dont have "the right to own a gun". They have "the right to life", which implies "the right to defend their life", which implies "the right to own the means to defend their life".

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Vanilla
With guns in houses it would be a deterrent. A burgler would not know if a house contains a gun.

yes, because their are no house burglaries in america are there?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Nodrog

Thats a side-issue - the question of where to draw the line is one of the last things that should be decided, after people have admitted that citizens have the right to defend themselves, and the state doesnt have the right to arbitrarily enforce whatever laws it chooses to denying private citizens the ability to defend themselves. In my opinion, anything that is primarilly a weapon of self-defence should be allowed. Pistols and rifles yes, sub-machineguns maybe, tanks no.

what if it has already been decided that citizens have the right to defend themselves, and the line has been drawn at guns?

so no, its not a side issue at all. we both agree citizens should be allowed to defend themselves, we disagree at where the line should be drawn.

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Vanilla
It was an example. I wonder if I gave five different scenarious you'd ask 'how often that happens'.

You can't put a statistic on the level of protection.

With guns in houses it would be a deterrent. A burgler would not know if a house contains a gun.

What about George harrison? Stabbed in the chest by an intruder. The Guys wife had to hit him with a vase.

It's not about how often something happens that should dictate people rights. Nor should the actions of one cause the government to punish thousands. It would be like banning live attendance at football matches because of football hooligans.

If you can convince me and others of my opinion that the number of lives threatened by violent crime in the UK in their own home is sufficient that everyone in the UK should be given the right to own a gun and keep it in their house, and that the number will significantly decrease as a result, then I'll happily agree with you.

Let's assume that legislation is brought in allowing you to keep a firearm in your home for your own protection. This means that pretty much everyone, good and bad, now has access to firearms. If someone came into your house and your life was threatened, then you can now defend yourself. Great!

What if the burglar, who now also has access to a gun, isn't too keen on the idea of being shot at, or having a gun aimed at him, so takes his firearm 'to work' with him. You're in a worse position now than you were before, it is significantly less risky for the intruder to shoot you and flee than it was before for him to run up to you, knife you a few times or twat you with a bat, then flee.

In my opinion, the benefits for such a scheme in no way come close to outweighing the risks.

[Vanilla]

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
yes, because their are no house burglaries in america are there?

There are house burgalries in every country. America has significantly less per capita.

The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States.

And while robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales, they fell 28 percent in the United States. Likewise, assaults increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States. And while motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England, it remained the same in America.

To make matters worse for England – and this is also true for Canada – in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not in to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.

The most drastic ascendancy of crimes in Britain was found in those types of felonies where recent studies in the U.S. have shown that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens not only save lives but also protect private property, reduce injuries to good people, and crime is generally deterred

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Vanilla
There are house burgalries in every country. America has significantly less per capita.

[/i]

so we get more houses burgled, but americans have more people killed. in the grand scale of things its my opinion that we are better off.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
do you think a rapidly growing crime rate would be halted/slowed by the relaxation of gun control laws?

Because currently only criminals own guns. If you allow their victims to possess guns also, they will have a better chance of defending themselves (and potential attackers will think twice before attacking because of the fear their victim is armed). A firearm ban does not remove guns from the country, it only means that people who want to break the law will have them.

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

got any figures on this? ive seen a lot of mention of firearms related crimes increasing in the UK since a ban

give me a minute

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

, but the fact is if you were to lower the speedlimit on roads to 20 mp/h nationwide, then speeding offences would increase enourmously.

Thats not the point anyone is making though - the amount of gun crime is completely irrelevant, only the total crime rate matters. If lowering the speed limit to 20mph resulted in twice as many accidents, youd have to question the wisdom of your policy.

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

just because gun control has been a policy of past totalitarian regimes, it doesnt mean that gun control leads to totalitarian regimes.

The will to deprive the population of the means to defend itself isnt a rather important factor in the transformation into authoritarianism?

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The right to do someone implicitly implies the right to own the tools needed to achieve it. If people have the right to self defence (which they do), then they must logically the right to own the means to defend themselves. In todays world, the best way for an individual to defend himself is with a firearm.

I agree that people have the right to defend themselves, and I also agree that the "best way" to defend oneself is with a gun. But what bothers me more is the fact that due to lax control, people who intend to do harm, also have access to these weapons.
I also believe that people should rely more on the power of a crowd. No criminal will do anything if he's in a crowd.

No. How often does this happen? Do countries with lax gun control laws have large amounts of incidents where "children shoot themselves with their dads gun"?

The most incidents of school-shootings and incidental killings by guns is, as far as my newssource tells me, in the US. Again, I don't have any hard statistics, but this is what I hear from the media.

No. The concept of "police" was 'invented' for retroactive force - ie force after the event. If I am being mugged, the police cannot help me - they arent there. If someone has broken into my house, then the police cannot help me - they arent there. Police are only a help after the event has happened and the crime has been reported - they are of no use while the crime is occuring, and this is why people still have the right to self defence (and the right to own the means of self defence) in countries that have a police force.

Here in the Netherlands police people walk on the streets. Police cars are surveiling busy parts of the cities. This will not discourage someone who intends to rob a bank and has been planning it for a few months, but it will reduce petty theft and robbery (to some extent).
You cannot expect police to be everywhere at any time, but you don't want civilians carry guns around either, as that makes them a potential threat, and makes it harder to distinguish them from a real criminal.

I agree, but defending yourself against an agressor has nothing to do with 'making up your own laws'. If people were encouraged to hunt down people who committed a crime against them rather than reporting them to the police, then youd have a point. However, having guns doesnt encourage this.

I'm not only talking about hunting down people. Killing people is a crime in itself. I also believe that holding a gun could incite killing. When the "robber" feels threatened he is more likely to pull the trigger.

Of course not, but it gives them a better chance of defending themselves. Also, simply having guns in wide circulation will generally reduce the amount of petty crimes. Even if only 20% of people carry guns, this will still make a potential criminal less likely to attack someone. How will he know if his intended victim has a gun? How will he know if the occupant of the house he is planning on breaking into is armed? He wont of course, and this will surely deter him from committing the crime.

There are two sides of the medal. If everyone is carrying a gun, aren't you very close to a state that is controlled by fear? What if I accidentally bump into someone who is having a very bad day?
I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea that 20% of the people around me are carrying a gun in their pocket.

Countries with tight control laws do not, in general, have significantly lower crime rates than those with lax laws. There is no evidence whatsoever at a global scale that gun control laws help reduce crime, and no logical reason that they would. If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns; not their victims.

I tend to differ here. If you have gun control also criminals will have less access to guns.
What will be the next step criminals take in a place where everyone has guns? Will they threaten you with a rocket launcher next if they rob you? That'll make you think twice pulling out your gun.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
so we get more houses burgled, but americans have more people killed. in the grand scale of things its my opinion that we are better off.

Remove drug-related crime and suicides from the American "criminal death"-rate figure, and see what youve got left.

[Vanilla]

Originally posted by pablissimo
If you can convince me and others of my opinion that the number of lives threatened by violent crime in the UK in their own home is sufficient that everyone in the UK should be given the right to own a gun and keep it in their house, and that the number will significantly decrease as a result, then I'll happily agree with you.

Let's assume that legislation is brought in allowing you to keep a firearm in your home for your own protection. This means that pretty much everyone, good and bad, now has access to firearms. If someone came into your house and your life was threatened, then you can now defend yourself. Great!

What if the burglar, who now also has access to a gun, isn't too keen on the idea of being shot at, or having a gun aimed at him, so takes his firearm 'to work' with him. You're in a worse position now than you were before, it is significantly less risky for the intruder to shoot you and flee than it was before for him to run up to you, knife you a few times or twat you with a bat, then flee.

In my opinion, the benefits for such a scheme in no way come close to outweighing the risks.

Not everyone in the UK. Not at all. Before when UK people were allowed firearms there was a strict set of criterias and inspections to be carried out.

'Bad' people can get guns easily. Back home with 800 pounds I can get a gun and ammunition faster than Domino's can deliver me a pizza. 'Bad' people don't use legally registered guns for crimes, they use illegal weapons.

Of course with your example I could again ask how often that would happen and for statistics. A burglar has too much against him to carry a firearm. An robbery with a gun or any weapon becomes armed robbery. 20 years in Prison.

Hence burglars choose either no tools, or knives (and that's at a push). What if the burglar carries a gun anyway? A man without a gun is just as likely to inspect a noise than one with. The man surprises the burglar, doesn't see the gun. A Gun metal grey object in the hands of a man of a man with no lights on.

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Nodrog
sigh. Yet again, retroactive force != force at time of crime. You could have the biggest police force the world has ever seen, but it still wouldnt be the slightest bit of use to a person in the process of being mugged. A gun would.

I'm assuming that a police force that is actively patrolling, and with a greater conviction record, will be a deterrent. You don't believe this to be true?

Originally posted by Nodrog
If he was running away with your wallet, then of course you shouldnt shoot him in the back - just the leg would do. Obviously if he in the process of actually mugging you, youd have the right to do whatever it took to secure your safety.

You're giving a weapon that has the potential to very easily take a life to an untrained individual, who is panicking because he's just been assaulted, or is in the process of being assaulted. The chances of someone shooting to maim in such a situation is slim, especially in a culture which doesn't have a history of firearm handling such as the US, who're more equipped through their heritidge and the general feeling towards weapons to properly use a firearm.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
I agree that people have the right to defend themselves, and I also agree that the "best way" to defend oneself is with a gun. But what bothers me more is the fact that due to lax control, people who intend to do harm, also have access to these weapons.

People who want to do harm WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE WEAPONS. Criminals do not generally obey laws. Making guns illegal does not stop criminals from getting them if they want them enough.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

There are two sides of the medal. If everyone is carrying a gun, aren't you very close to a state that is controlled by fear? What if I accidentally bump into someone who is having a very bad day?
I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea that 20% of the people around me are carrying a gun in their pocket.

Because you arent used to it. Yes, if you live in a society where noone owns guns, you will feel uncomfortable at first in one where they are widely owned. If you live in the country all your life, you might feel awkward the first time you go to a big city. Again: ask an average american if he feels fear walking around his city because of people carrying guns.

In my opinion, youre likely to feel more 'scared' living in a place with a high crimerate.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

The most incidents of school-shootings and incidental killings by guns is, as far as my newssource tells me, in the US. Again, I don't have any hard statistics, but this is what I hear from the media.

Yes, but they are isolated incidents. When something like that happens, it gets massive amounts of media coverage, but that isnt an accurate reflection of day to day life. You cant judge a policy based on extreme cases.

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

Here in the Netherlands police people walk on the streets. Police cars are surveiling busy parts of the cities. This will not discourage someone who intends to rob a bank and has been planning it for a few months, but it will reduce petty theft and robbery (to some extent).

http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Because currently only criminals own guns. If you allow their victims to possess guns also, they will have a better chance of defending themselves (and potential attackers will think twice before attacking because of the fear their victim is armed). A firearm ban does not remove guns from the country, it only means that people who want to break the law will have them.

long term it will help remove guns from a country, for 5-10 years yes there will be a lot of guns still around, but supplies of guns/ammunition will now only be available through smuggling. And yes, criminals will still get their hands on them (as they do now) but deaths resulting from gun use will be lowered because less people will be in possesion of them

"there is no connection, and you would be a fool and a communist to think there was, between having a gun and killing someone with it and not having a gun and not killing someone with it."

Thats not the point anyone is making though - the amount of gun crime is completely irrelevant, only the total crime rate matters. If lowering the speed limit to 20mph resulted in twice as many accidents, youd have to question the wisdom of your policy.

i thought the increase crime statistics to which you refered were gun crimes.

The will to deprive the population of the means to defend itself isnt a rather important factor in the transformation into authoritarianism?

so you are saying that all countries that have introduced gun control have become totalitarian regimes? if not then your point is bollocks.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Remove drug-related crime and suicides from the American "criminal death"-rate figure, and see what youve got left.

i have a better idea, you can do it for me.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Vanilla
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335

that page is the evil.

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Vanilla
Not everyone in the UK. Not at all. Before when UK people were allowed firearms there was a strict set of criterias and inspections to be carried out.

'Bad' people can get guns easily. Back home with 800 pounds I can get a gun and ammunition faster than Domino's can deliver me a pizza. 'Bad' people don't use legally registered guns for crimes, they use illegal weapons.

Of course with your example I could again ask how often that would happen and for statistics. A burglar has too much against him to carry a firearm. An robbery with a gun or any weapon becomes armed robbery. 20 years in Prison.

Hence burglars choose either no tools, or knives (and that's at a push). What if the burglar carries a gun anyway? A man without a gun is just as likely to inspect a noise than one with. The man surprises the burglar, doesn't see the gun. A Gun metal grey object in the hands of a man of a man with no lights on.

I was more aiming my point towards the general opinion that having a gun in a house would be a deterrent. Having a person/people in a house is the biggest deterrent. The chances of your life ever being in jeopardy at the moment during a burgalry are slim at best. The chances of your life being in jeopardy if the pair of you are armed is much more so.

Example:
Say, hypothetically, I enter your house now. You come downstairs to investigate the noise, I see you, I flee.
Say, hypothetically, I enter your house with a knife. You come downstairs to investigate the noise, I see you, I still flee, perhaps weidling the knife to stop you chasing (which you probably wouldn't given I've got a knife)

Now say we both have guns. I enter your house, you hear me. You take your gun and come to investigate the noise. Now, to get me out of your house you'll have to do one of three things.

Either, I'll see/hear you, and run.

Maybe you aim your gun at me and shout for me to freeze, or something similar. I'm a robber, I'm panicked, I've got a gun pointed to me, it's dark, I've a gun of my own. Maybe it's not a great leap of logic to shooting you, or you shooting me, and the chances of you taking me out in one shot, in the dark, are slim, so we'll say the chance of both of us being injured is not negligible.

Or maybe you just shoot me outright, even though you've no idea if I'm armed or not. One-nil to the good guys, you've just taken a life.

In all three scenarios, which is the most likely to lead to personal harm?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

There are two sides of the medal. If everyone is carrying a gun, aren't you very close to a state that is controlled by fear? What if I accidentally bump into someone who is having a very bad day?
I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea that 20% of the people around me are carrying a gun in their pocket.

Because you arent used to it. Yes, if you live in a society where noone owns guns, you will feel uncomfortable at first in one where they are widely owned. If you live in the country all your life, you might feel awkward the first time you go to a big city. Again: ask an average american if he feels fear walking around his city because of people carrying guns.

In my opinion, youre likely to feel more 'scared' living in a place with a high crimerate.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by pablissimo

Who cares? The agressors life is secondary to that of the victims in pretty much every situation where the victim is directly at risk of unjust physical harm.

Your scenario is flawed because it doesnt take into account 1) The burgalar attacking the occupant when neither have guns, 2) The burglar having a gun when the occupant doesnt (omg but that would mean the criminal is breaking the law!), and 3) the fact that the occupant would most likely shoot the criminal the minute he found him in his house.

Also, wouldnt the criminal be less likely to break in if he suspects the occupant is armed and is legally allowed to shoot him?

[Vanilla]

Originally posted by pablissimo
I was more aiming my point towards the general opinion that having a gun in a house would be a deterrent. Having a person/people in a house is the biggest deterrent. The chances of your life ever being in jeopardy at the moment during a burgalry are slim at best. The chances of your life being in jeopardy if the pair of you are armed is much more so.

[/i]

Exactly. In the link above it explains that because a robber would not know which house has a gun they would opt to burgle a house when the people are not in it. Chances of your life being in jeopardy? you can't even put a statistic on that. Many burglars do their deed because of drugs. I'd consider a drug addict looking for things to steal and sell, not willing to go to prison where he can't get his fix to be a very dangerous person.

Anyone in your house uninvited is a dangerous person. They're there for a reason and it doesn't include the well being of the homeowner.

'Scanarios' can go any way. It's like rock/paper/scissors. Bad guy has knife, homeowner has gun. Homeowner wins. Not only has the homeowner protected himself but he can keep the burglar in his house until the police arrive stopping the man from burgling another house where the situation may not turn out as nice.

Whether the scenario dictates good or bad the homeowner should still have a tool to ensure his safety and peace of mind.

People forget that just a few years ago people had guns in their house. The reports of incidents of gun owners was non-existant. Apart from training the british people chose to not regularly go and shoot their guns for sport. They would train often to ensure they are competant and that's it.

It's not like it's a new law they want to implement. It's an old law that worked well and was turned around because of the action of one man.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Who cares? The criminals life is secondary to that of the victims in pretty much every situation where the victim is directly at risk of physical harm.

Your scenario is flawed because it doesnt take into account 1) The burgalar attacking the occupant when neither have guns, 2) The burglar having a gun when the occupant doesnt (omg but that would mean the criminal is breaking the law!), and 3) the fact that the occupant would most likely shoot the criminal the minute he found him in his house.

Also, wouldnt the criminal be less likely to break in if he suspects the occupant is armed and is legally allowed to shoot him?

so you would allow people to be judge, jury and executioner?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
so you would allow people to be judge, jury and executioner?

In cases where their lives are being directly threatened? Yes - who else can possibly do the job? Do you want him to ask the criminal to wait while he runs to get a policeman?

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Who cares? The criminals life is secondary to that of the victims in pretty much every situation.

Your scenario is flawed because it doesnt take into account 1) The burgalar attacking the occupant when neither have guns, 2) The burglar having a gun when the occupant doesnt (omg but that would mean the criminal is breaking the law!), and 3) the fact that the occupant would most likely shoot the criminal the minute he found him in his house.

I didn't mention the burglar attacking the occupier because the statistical likelihood of this is slim, I'll find some numbers for you after this.

I didn't mention the burglar having a gun but the occupant didn't because, once again, this is an unlikely scenario under current legislation. You assume that simply because guns can be acquired illegally, they will be. Burglars in general have no need for a weapon, as Vanilla said before, the difference between going down for burglary and going down for armed robbery is a number of years.

And the third point was mentioned. I was trying to illict feelings of pity for the poor criminal.

Seriously, it was connected with a previous post of material goods being considered as valuable as a life. So you kill that robber in your home. Ace, he was intruding on your property, he deserved to die, absolutely. The fact that he's dead means however that there's no chance he can be punished through the courts for his crimes, during which time in a working justice system we would assume some level of rehabilitation, meaning that he can never atone for his crime.

Preferable?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by pablissimo
I didn't mention the burglar attacking the occupier because the statistical likelihood of this is slim, I'll find some numbers for you after this.

I didn't mention the burglar having a gun but the occupant didn't because, once again, this is an unlikely scenario under current legislation.

Whereas the occurance of incidents involving the criminal and victim having exciting high-octane shootouts in the living room is breathtakingly high

Originally posted by pablissimo

Seriously, it was connected with a previous post of material goods being considered as valuable as a life.

My material goods that I've worked for are more valuable than the health of a criminal who is trying to take them from me by force. Im sorry you place so little value in the fruits of your labour or material achievments.

Originally posted by pablissimo

So you kill that robber in your home. Ace, he was intruding on your property, he deserved to die, absolutely. The fact that he's dead means however that there's no chance he can be punished through the courts for his crimes, during which time in a working justice system we would assume some level of rehabilitation, meaning that he can never atone for his crime.

Preferable?

Preferable to the victim not shooting and risking physical injury? Yes.

Even if 5 criminals have to die for every 1 innocent person who is spared serious injury, it is worth it.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Nodrog
In cases where their lives are being directly threatened? Yes - who else can possibly do the job? Do you want him to ask the criminal to wait while he runs to get a policeman?

id rather give someone my wallet than shoot them in the face. maybe im just like that but life > material possesions IMO.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea that 20% of the people around me are carrying a gun in their pocket.

I don't follow this. If someone wants to kill you, they don't need a gun to do it. Every day I stand on a crowded train platform. At a moments notice someone could cheerfully push me into the path of an oncoming train, and I'd have no chance of surviving. Similarly when crossing the road a fellow pedestrian or motorist could kill me easily (much easier than aiming a gun).

But I think both sides of the argument here are slightly askew. I support the right of people to have guns, but I don't think guns are particularly brilliant methods of defending yourself. Maybe if we were all good shots and fairly hard (movie style) they would be, but most people who get injured in breakins are elderly people who'd (probably) be useless with guns anyway.

I just got back from South Africa where gun ownership is fairly common. People still try and break in to people's homes all the time (and almost every household has solid metal bars over their windows). In one case one of my inlaws friends owned a farm in the middle of nowhere. They have guns (as do most farmers) but that didn't stop two guys breaking into their house, garotting him and then hammering him to death. But I suppose a guns better than nothing.

Don't get me wrong though, if I did have a gun and I awoke to some guy in my house, the bastard's going down.

Of course, the best way to reduce crime isn't guns or more police (I saw far, far higher levels of armed police presence in both Cape Town and Jo'burg) but greater social solidarity. The thing that stops me not want to break into your house in the middle of the night isn't the fear that you're going to kick my arse. It's the fact I have opportunities in my own life and I'm a (fairly) reasonable human being.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
id rather give someone my wallet than shoot them in the face. maybe im just like that but life > material possesions IMO.

Youd be free to do that if you wanted, noone is making you shoot anybody.


Dante - South Africa isnt a very good example to give in any discussion relating to crime...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
id rather give someone my wallet than shoot them in the face. maybe im just like that but life > material possesions IMO.

It's not about life being more than material possesions. It's about them violating your rights. In a mugging situation there is a very real threat of violence (or occurence of violence). We're not talking about shop-lifting here, or (heh) music piracy. Someone is threatening you, they might beat you up, assault your partner, etc. I don't give a **** about money (within reason), but if it's in my capacity to resist someone whose mugging me, I will.

If I was an expert kung-fu fighter and I beat someone up who tried to mug me, I presume you would think this is acceptable. If I'm weedy but I have a .44 Magnum then surely I should still have the opportunity?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Youd be free to do that if you wanted, noone is making you shoot them.

its not necessary for anybody to shoot anybody (in most situations)

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Nodrog
http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

Interresting link, but as always there are other things that have to be considered.

First off, there is no seperate numbers that indicate the murders/robberies/assualts with a firearm in the Netherlands in that article. Meaning that it's not possible to tell where this extra 24% comes from.

Secondly, the property crime number is also flawed IMO, and I can guess where it's coming from. The big number in the Netherlands probably comes from youths demolishing public benches and bus-stop-thingies (don't know the word for it). I have the idea that these numbers are also taken into account from the Dutch bureau (as they always do).
The US numbers come from the FBI, so I find it unlikely that petty crimes like these are taken into account.

Still, I was rather surprised by the numbers presented by the article regarding violent crimes. But because of the little detail given about the specific crimes I cannot tell you that you are right.