NationStates Jolt Archive

hi if you are here then you are interested in my topic or you are looking and might put a post that is your choice. Just like it is your choice to either pull the trigger of the gun or put it down and save another human from an unjustified death.

some say it is not the gun that kills but it is he who pulls the trigger but the gun is the one that is loaded to kill. We have only got a choice to make either pull the trigger and kill some one just like you or to stop and help save someones life.

hopefuly you will never have to make that choiceand then you will know what I am talking about and understand hat some people are good or bad on the outside but inside we all think and work the same so killing because they are evil or because you think that they are to good for your liking just remember that you are the same as them every one is so that does not give you any right to kill them.

well you would also have to take into consideration the facts of why you pulled the trigger. you see if its self defense then there is no problem there. but if you pull the trigger for the fun of doing it or just because they m,ade you mad then by all means you should give em the penalty or somthing else but you cannot ban guns. humans need guns at points in their life for survial and defense. so banning could be a problem on survival.

some people are good or bad on the outside


there really is no good or bad its all different point of veiws and people kill b/c the person that they're killing has a different point of veiw than them and its their point of veiw thats right. this is simply called ignorance. if one could understand both ends they would probably not be drawn to homocide or they could both come to an agreement about which "point of view" is "better" or "more understandable".

other than that guns aren't the problem its the people outlawing guns would not prevent murder. people would find other ways to get the job done. poison, beating them to death, drowning, stabbing, running over, etc. so banning guns isn't the answer. people who hunt would agree w/ me b/c guns are used in hunting. and people who enjoy the sport should not be punished for people commiting homicide

In the wrong hands anything can kill. Even a pencil can kill if it is wielded in the right way. Guns are not the problem. People must be educated about violence if crime is to go down.

Nope, i think the answer is that you make the punishments harder. Why not use executing, torturing and labor camps? Especially the last one, the criminals work for free and do whatever you want.

Nope, i think the answer is that you make the punishments harder. Why not use executing, torturing and labor camps? Especially the last one, the criminals work for free and do whatever you want.

Labor camps are okay (more desirable than prisons in fact), execution is okay in THE MOST EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, torture is never justified.

"He who wishes to secure his liberty from oppression must also take care to secure the liberty of his enemy, for if he violates in this duty, he sets a precedent that will come back to himself."
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense

humans need guns at points in their life for survial and defense. so banning could be a problem on survival.
I disagree! You need guns as a policeman or a soldier, but not else! If you see how many people are accidently killed in countries which allow guns, than there should be no other decision than banning them, like most countries in the world do.

humans need guns at points in their life for survial and defense. so banning could be a problem on survival.
I disagree! You need guns as a policeman or a soldier, but not else! If you see how many people are accidently killed in countries which allow guns, than there should be no other decision than banning them, like most countries in the world do.

Looking at the Twentieth century you are 80 times more likely to be killed by government than by criminals or terrorists.

Guns are the fundamental check on government... When the RULE OF LAW fails to nonviolently stem the tide of tyranny, citizens have a fundamental right to arm themselves against state exersize of arbitrary power and oppression.

We all want rights to be protected peacefully ... but you can't always count on it. You must hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

America wouldn't even exist if it weren't for private gun ownership.

Looking at the Twentieth century you are over 100 times more likely to be killed by government than by criminals.

Guns are the fundamental check on government... When the RULE OF LAW fails to nonviolently stem the tide of tyranny, citizens have a fundamental right to arm themselves against arbitrary power and oppression.
If a country turns into a dictartorship, you have other ways to fight it than weapons. The only succesfull protest in Nazi-Germany was not done by weapons but by peaceful protest of a great number of people!
OOC: You are usanian, aren't you?

Looking at the Twentieth century you are over 100 times more likely to be killed by government than by criminals.

Guns are the fundamental check on government... When the RULE OF LAW fails to nonviolently stem the tide of tyranny, citizens have a fundamental right to arm themselves against arbitrary power and oppression.
If a country turns into a dictartorship, you have other ways to fight it than weapons. The only succesfull protest in Nazi-Germany was not done by weapons but by peaceful protest of a great number of people!
OOC: You are usanian, aren't you?

What successful protest was there in Nazi Germany?

Peaceful protest DEPENDS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE OF OPERATING WITH RESTRAINT.

Civil disobedience worked in India and the USA because the American and British governments were hesitant to kill protestors.

Civil disobedience failed miserably in Nazi Germany and China because their governments were less heistant to shoot people.

What successful protest was there in Nazi Germany?

Peaceful protest DEPENDS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE OF OPERATING WITH RESTRAINT.

Civil disobedience worked in India and the USA because the American and British governments were hesitant to kill protestors.

Civil disobedience failed miserably in Nazi Germany and China because their governments were less heistant to shoot people.

The protest of the women of the Rosenstraße, who protested against the imprisonment of their husbands.

Protest with weapons will just lead to a more violent response

What successful protest was there in Nazi Germany?

Peaceful protest DEPENDS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE OF OPERATING WITH RESTRAINT.

Civil disobedience worked in India and the USA because the American and British governments were hesitant to kill protestors.

Civil disobedience failed miserably in Nazi Germany and China because their governments were less heistant to shoot people.

The protest of the women of the Rosenstraße, who protested against the imprisonment of their husbands.

Protest with weapons will just lead to a more violent response

I've been through the Nazi resistance movements countless times, and I've never even heard of the protest of the Rosenstraffe. Link please?

The most famous civil disobedience group in Nazi Germany was the White Rose... and we all know how that turned out.

The best form of protest would be one where indispensible people, in the case of the Nazis like the business leaders and scientists, all left the country. But since that usually doesn't happen, guns are the next best thing.

Of course violence begets violence. But the state might be out to kill you anyways, so you have nothing to lose.

And don't laugh. Here's what someone who was in that situation says:

“And how we later burned in the camps, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the entire cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

- Nobel-Prize Winner Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelligo

I love the law just as much as the next guy, but we must realize that law is an internal check on government. If theoretically the entire govenrment, or most of it, becomes corrupted, the law will become corrupted too, and therefore it will be meaningless.

There is an external check on individuals and groups of individuals (the law). Therefore, there MUST be an external check on government (guns).

humans need guns at points in their life for survial and defense. so banning could be a problem on survival.

in the uk we have banned handguns and it is actually a plus point for our survival rate

humans need guns at points in their life for survial and defense. so banning could be a problem on survival.

in the uk we have banned handguns and it is actually a plus point for our survival rate

Slippery slope ....

This chapter of the german resistance is little known, but despite of this, I was able to find a source in the internet:
http://www.interlog.com/~mighty/reviews/review12.htm

To this text of Solzhenitsyn: The Nazis used mostly intimidation and terror as a weapon, and this also works if you are armed.

Face the facts:
we need guns for survival now days. in some countries and towns you walk out on the street and get shot at. so what do you just take it. i mean i knwo that there should be restrictions to a POINT but you cannot ban guns to everyone but cops and military and gov't officials. its just not right.

This chapter of the german resistance is little known, but despite of this, I was able to find a source in the internet:
http://www.interlog.com/~mighty/reviews/review12.htm

To this text of Solzhenitsyn: The Nazis used mostly intimidation and terror as a weapon, and this also works if you are armed.

Of course it still works if you are armed, just not as well.

And the Rosenstrasse would have been because the protestors were extremely well-connected. I can't imagine Polish women doing that.

Face the facts:
we need guns for survival now days. in some countries and towns you walk out on the street and get shot at. so what do you just take it. i mean i knwo that there should be restrictions to a POINT but you cannot ban guns to everyone but cops and military and gov't officials. its just not right.

Why not? It works fine in most parts of the world. Perhaps you are thinking in the wrong direction: Yoiu do not need guns to protect yourself. But the fact, that guns are easily available is the reason, why you are in danger. Ever thought about the fact, that in country without legal guns, crime is much lower?

then dont restrict guns. i think you should buckle down on gun liscenses so that guns and the sale of guns are monitored and not loosely sold.
that way we know who and how many guns they have.

Face the facts:
we need guns for survival now days. in some countries and towns you walk out on the street and get shot at. so what do you just take it. i mean i knwo that there should be restrictions to a POINT but you cannot ban guns to everyone but cops and military and gov't officials. its just not right.

Why not? It works fine in most parts of the world. Perhaps you are thinking in the wrong direction: Yoiu do not need guns to protect yourself. But the fact, that guns are easily available is the reason, why you are in danger. Ever thought about the fact, that in country without legal guns, crime is much lower?

Crime was very low in Nazi Germany too. Basically you are suggesting eliminating crime by making government the criminal.

People in 20th century killed by criminals, mafia, terrorists, etc: 2.5 Million
People in 20th century killed by government: 200 Million

That's an 80 to 1 kill ratio.

And if you only count gun murders, it's probably a 120+ to 1 ratio.

well everyone the cards are on the table
those are the amounts and numbers so now you can see who is really behind the gun problem now days.

@TGM: Please specify the definition of: 'killed by the government'. Crime is also low in the Germany of today. Have you seen the film 'bowling for columbine'? There is a very interesting statistic in it about guns and crimes.

The citizens of Nianacio are free to own any guns they want (even machine guns). If Nianacio is ever invaded, the armed citizens will pose a significant threat to any passing invaders.

If you think gun control reduces crime, perhaps you should visit this (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html) link.

@TGM: Please specify the definition of: 'killed by the government'. Crime is also low in the Germany of today. Have you seen the film 'bowling for columbine'? There is a very interesting statistic in it about guns and crimes.

Killed by the government: Killed by police, soldiers, executioners, and other agents acting in the name of a government OR died as a result of government policies directed at killing people (The forced famine in the Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward in China, etc.)

The peace/war distribution is about:
50 Million Wartime Combat Deaths
50 Million Wartime Non-Combat Deaths
100 Million Peacetime Deaths

And I've seen Bowling for Columbine. It's BS. It's very funny BS, but BS nonetheless.

Yes, great, ust put three figures together and call it statistic. This is clearly biased!

Guns aren't bad. THey serve a purpose. Just because some go crazy and shoot people doesn't they are BAD!! People kill people, guns don't.
Think about it. :wink:

Just over 1 in 500 gun owners use their guns irresponsibly.

Probably more than 1 in 500 car owners use their cars irresponsibly. Ban cars?

Postscript. I shouldn't of wrote that. Some people seriously want to ban cars.

It is not just the irresponsible use of guns, which forms a problem, but also the accidents, that happen when you are owning guns. For example: if you own a gun, the risk that one of your family members gets shot is 22 times more probable! (Sorry for my faulty english :( )

It is not just the irresponsible use of guns, which forms a problem, but also the accidents, that happen when you are owning guns. For example: if you own a gun, the risk that one of your family members gets shot is 22 times more probable! (Sorry for my faulty english :( )

Actually the chance that you will shoot somebody should be infinitely higher since you can't shoot somebody without a gun.

But still... empirically the chance that you will be arrested and shot by Secret Police is higher than being accidentally shot by a family member.

And you really think, that you can escape or hnder them from arresting you, when you are armed? Dreamer!

And you really think, that you can escape or hnder them from arresting you, when you are armed? Dreamer!

No but when everyone in the country is armed....

And you really think, that you can escape or hnder them from arresting you, when you are armed? Dreamer!If 'the evil secret policeman' is dead, I doubt he can arrest you.

It is not just the irresponsible use of guns, which forms a problem, but also the accidents, that happen when you are owning guns. For example: if you own a gun, the risk that one of your family members gets shot is 22 times more probable! (Sorry for my faulty english :( )
This is a flat out lie.

in the uk we have banned handguns and it is actually a plus point for our survival rate
This is also a lie. Rates of violent crime, gun crime, and homocide have risen since the ban on handguns.

The fundamental right to revolt against severely illegitimate government is guarenteed by the US Declaration of Independence, which should be enshrined in International Law:

"Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established shall not be changed for light and transient reasons /.../ but when a long chain of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce them [citizens] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

We have a similar law in germany. But, hey, what did you do about Patriot act? It seriously limits your civil rights and you accepted it. THAT is the way, dictatorships establissh.

We have a similar law in germany. But, hey, what did you do about Patriot act? It seriously limits your civil rights and you accepted it. THAT is the way, dictatorships establissh.

Yeah nobody actually read the Patriot Act. Patriot Act II was brutually shot down in Congress though.

Yes, but you know now, what the Partiot Act is about and it is still valid. Where is your protest? I guess your constitution would allow violent protest in this case, where is it?

And the Rosenstrasse would have been because the protestors were extremely well-connected. I can't imagine Polish women doing that.
Not at all. They were ordinary citizens. The protest worked because, in the first place, the Nazi government was much concerned with its public image (at least in Germany and Western Europe), and in the second, because the protest was spontaneous and had no leaders to arrest. Arresting a dozen leaders would have worked, arresting 6,000 women would have caused problems.
Unlike Stalin's regime, Hitler's was quite sensitive to popular opinion and morale, which it took pains to manipulate.
Had such a protest occurred in Eastern Europe, the women would have been simply machine gunned. The most effective resistance in Eastern Europe was armed.

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/rosenstr.htm

The most effective resistance in Eastern Europe was armed.
The protestors on the monday-demonstations and at the peace prayers in the GDR were armed? I don't think so.

The most effective resistance in Eastern Europe was armed.
The protestors on the monday-demonstations and at the peace prayers in the GDR were armed? I don't think so.
The GDR didn't exist in WWII, genius.

:oops: That was a misunderstanding.
there was also much unarmed resistance like Sabotage in the occupied territories.

I really don't have much of a stand on gun control, though I have to wodner if people will simply replace guns with something else if you ban them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Hey I say that If you have a right cause to Pull the trigger then do so other then that I say the person who pulled the trigger should be sent to prison for LIFE!!! :x

there was also much unarmed resistance like Sabotage in the occupied territories. Only in Eastern Europe; the French and Dutch were quite docile and could be induced to volunteer for munitions production in any amount desired merely by threatening them with deportation. The Slavs, even when deported to Germany, were a constant problem, slowing down production, sabotaging equipment, and producing defective weapons for the Wehrmacht.

:oops: That was a misunderstanding.
there was also much unarmed resistance like Sabotage in the occupied territories.

Sabotage IS armed resistance.

Good point, TGM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Sabotage is armed resistance? It seems most unlikely that the Nazis allowed slave workers to bring weapons into their factories.

Sabotage is armed resistance? It seems most unlikely that the Nazis allowed slave workers to bring weapons into their factories.

Violent resistance.

I disagree! You need guns as a policeman or a soldier, but not else! If you see how many people are accidently killed in countries which allow guns, than there should be no other decision than banning them, like most countries in the world do.

Keeping firearms in the hands of the police is the best way to insure a police state. And the police are in fact rarely in a position to do anything when it comes to crime. The most they can do is punish the person who murders you - which doesn't help you much.

And if gun control like the above really worked, then why do many counties with highly restrictive gun laws still have gun crime while at the same time other countries with relatively little restriction on gun ownership have relartively little crime.

The fact of the matter is that firearms ownership has very little to do crime. Criminals, by definitition, do not obey the law. They are going to be able to obtain firearms anyway. Law abiding cirizens should be able to protect themselves.

If we use you ctiteria to ban things based on the number of deaths they cause, guns would be way down the list. Bathtubs, hights and electricity are far more likely to injure or kill than guns. Should we ban these too?

@TGM: Please specify the definition of: 'killed by the government'. Crime is also low in the Germany of today. Have you seen the film 'bowling for columbine'? There is a very interesting statistic in it about guns and crimes.

You are aware that "Bowling for Columbine" is filled with factual inaccuracies (or if you prefer, lies). Michael Moore is notorious for his twisting of facts and just plain making things up. See for example : http://www.moorelies.com/

Guns are they ok?

I say that guns are one of the things that are mostly corrupting nation’s countries and our planet. There are lots more things out there but if we can conquer this then we can conquer any thing.
This issue is to me the most important things to stop for the reasons I will give you I hope that you can maybe share my views.

I f you are holding a gun at another human then it is your choice to either pull the trigger of the gun or put it down and save another human from an unjustified death.

Some say it is not the gun that kills but it is he who pulls the trigger but the gun is the one that is loaded to kill. We have only got a choice to make either pull the trigger and kill some one just like you or to stop and help save someone’s life.

hopefully you will never have to make that choice and then you will know what I am talking about and understand hat some people are good or bad on the outside but inside we all think and work the same so killing because they are evil or because you think that they are to good for your liking just remember that you are the same as them every one is so that does not give you any right to kill them.

Guns are they ok I say no but I have justified why and why you should agree to and help save our fine beautiful world and maybe even our universe.

If you're dumb enough not to defend your life against an aggressor when you have the means to kill him, you deserve to die.
If you want to take away the right of others to defend their lives against aggression, you deserve to die.

If you're dumb enough not to defend your life against an aggressor when you have the means to kill him, you deserve to die.
If you want to take away the right of others to defend their lives against aggression, you deserve to die.
Did youi ever thought, that there could be more reasons to protect against an aggressor, if guns are easily available? In countries, where guns are not that easy to get/steal, the chance is much lower to get shot.

Did you ever think that criminals are unlikely to refrain from using firearms on account of laws against them?
Even if they don't have guns, these are not required for offensive violence of the sort undertaken by criminals, as anyone who has confronted two or three husky young men equipped with knives and clubs can attest. The presence of firearms favors the victim, in the case of criminal attacks, because it levels the playing field. Criminals are cowards; they act when they have an advantage, such as numbers, physical strength, or surprise. Guns neutralize those advantages, and put the criminal at risk. If the victim is armed with a gun, they put their own lives at risk by attacking, even if their numbers are greater, even if they have guns. Criminals don't like being put at risk.
If there's a kind of gun control that has any merit, it consists in making it more difficult for criminals to possess firearms. Harsher penalties for using a gun in a crime, stricter enforcement of laws forbidding felons to possess guns. If you want to reduce crime, act against the criminal, not the victim.

Since also the criminals will be armed, it is not leveled and to be honest: I would prefer being intimidated by clubs and physical strenght than by a gun, since clubs and bare hands don't kill that fast.

No one is suggesting, Rejistania, that you be required to arm yourself or defend yourself; if you prefer to be a helpless victim, that is your prerogative. We ask only that you not seek to impose your preference on others.

I did not say, that I would prefer to be helpless, but as you said, criminals work by suprise or by higher numbers and in this case I'd rather see them without arms then armed, because that enhances my chance to survive. (What does your gun help you, when suddently someone or some persons point guns at you and shoot when you move?)

I did not say, that I would prefer to be helpless, but as you said, criminals work by suprise or by higher numbers and in this case I'd rather see them without arms then armed, because that enhances my chance to survive. (What does your gun help you, when suddently someone or some persons point guns at you and shoot when you move?)

Most would rather see criminals unarmed than armed, but some claim (quite correctly, I think) that passing laws restricting or prohibiting gun ownership will not keep criminals from getting guns, and it does stop lawful citizens from being able to defend themselves against criminals. Ask yourself this: if a person is willing to break a law which is punished by life imprisonment or death (committing murder), won't they be willing to break laws prohibitting gun ownership, which, presumably, will have less severe punishments?

And before anyone jumps on me with the "the fact that people will break a law is not reason enough not to pass it" counterargument, please note the previously mentioned adverse consequence of passing gun prohibition laws - that it makes it more difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

what if guns were to stoped being made all factories closed and the employes given new jobs and a btter life than know ing that thier job helps kill people and animals.

so that is why guns are not ok




guns are they ok?

:shock: OK IT SEEMS MOST PEOPLE(COUNTRIES AGREE THAT GUNS ARE VERY CONTRAVERSAL SUBJECT,HUNTING FOR FOOD IS OK BUT NOT FOR THE TROPHY. AND MOST HAND GUNS DO NOT PROTECT OWNER, USUALLY THEY ARE USED TO KILL THE OWNER BY A PERPATRATOR. SO I DON'T LIKE GUNS,BUT POLICE AND MILITARY NEED THEM. BEING A COUNTRY YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH C&C(COMMITMENTS AND CAPABILITIES) TO SEE YOUR STRIKE FORCE AND TO KEEP WAR AT HAND.

I did not say, that I would prefer to be helpless, but as you said, criminals work by suprise or by higher numbers and in this case I'd rather see them without arms then armed, because that enhances my chance to survive. (What does your gun help you, when suddently someone or some persons point guns at you and shoot when you move?)
You did say that you would prefer not to defend yourself.
Your choice is not to see criminals armed or unarmed. Most likely they cannot be prevented from having firearms; certainly they will have equally lethal weapons. It may surprise you to learn that you are more likely to survive a shooting than a stabbing. Getting shot is nothing at all like the sanitized nonsense you see on TV; it's rare for a gunshot wound to cause instant collapse, and most gunshot victims survive. Stabbing victims more often than not bleed to death. The advantages of a gun are range and ease of use, not lethality.
The kind of ambush killing you describe is extremely rare (outside of gang warfare) and for good reason. The criminal wishes to be close to his victim, to despoil him quickly; he wishes to avoid drawing attention (and gunshots are VERY loud); he wishes to avoid killing, as this will create the possibility of a police investigation and a serious punishment. In fact, most would prefer to avoid any actual violence, and get what they desire by intimidation.
Criminals don't want to be killed, which is why, as I explained earlier, guns tend to equalize conditions, even if everyone has them. Of course in a firefight between one person and five, the one will lose, but any of the five might also die - or wind up on death row. Criminals prefer easy victims.

Criminals like to surprise and to 'made their thing quick' I agree. But I do not agree, stat knifes are more lethal than guns: Knifes don't work on the same distance as guns do. So if you try to flee from them, they can shoot at you even if you are meters away. Even if you do not die of it, that is highly undesirable. Criminals may do not want to shoot you, but if there is trouble and they 'loose their nerves' because of the situation, they will do it in spite of this.

@Horses and Things: Check your CAPSLock-key!

Foolish, myopic and ill informed. It amazes me how many people still subscribe to NRA crafted paranoid propaganda.

Guns kill people. Why? Because you are disassociated from the act. Killing at distance is like a computer game - it's not YOU pulling the trigger, it's whichever 'roided up muscle muppet is currently riding high in the action movie charts that you care to imagine youself as. Striking blows for justice, vengeance and manly pride is ok, apparently.

Thing is, you just have to make the tiniest move of your index finger to fulfil all your testosterone-fuelled wank fantasies in one go. To kill with a knife, however, is very different: imagine having to actually stick the thing in and then wiggle it around to ensure the rupture of as many internal organs as possible - if you really want to kill, that is.

I reckon that plenty of people could subscribe to the sanitised (and cowardly) act of killing from distance, but few of the same heroes could really get messy - it's a bit too much like real life.

I'm British, and one of the only things that make me proud of my miserable nation is the fact that our tight gun legislation and refreshing lack of macho twattery in regard to firearms ensures that we have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world. Christ, even our police don't want them, rightly determining that if they tool up they will merely be provoking and perpetuating an eternal arms race between one big dick posse and the next. Grow up America, and look to yourselves. Your obsession with the firearm is ensuring that thousands of your citizens die needlessly each year. It's not big, it's not clever and it sure as hell ain't cool, Tarantino or no Tarantino.

Selah

If anything, Britain has had a surge in gun crime, thanks to gun control laws. Of course, the anti gun-Idiotarians don't want you to know it, but this only goes to show that gun control laws only do the opposite of what they are supposed to do (reduce gun crime).
Yes, you can deny it all you want, but I have the facts right here (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=britain+gun+crime). Just pick from one of the sources.

But I do not agree, stat knifes are more lethal than guns: Knifes don't work on the same distance as guns do. So if you try to flee from them, they can shoot at you even if you are meters away. Even if you do not die of it, that is highly undesirable.

Of course, if you had a gun, you would not need to run away in the first place! Besides, criminals can still get guns whether or not there are gun control laws in place.

Foolish, myopic and ill informed. It amazes me how many people still subscribe to NRA crafted paranoid propaganda.

Guns kill people. Why? Because you are disassociated from the act. Killing at distance is like a computer game - it's not YOU pulling the trigger, it's whichever 'roided up muscle muppet is currently riding high in the action movie charts that you care to imagine youself as. Striking blows for justice, vengeance and manly pride is ok, apparently.

Thing is, you just have to make the tiniest move of your index finger to fulfil all your testosterone-fuelled wank fantasies in one go. To kill with a knife, however, is very different: imagine having to actually stick the thing in and then wiggle it around to ensure the rupture of as many internal organs as possible - if you really want to kill, that is.

I reckon that plenty of people could subscribe to the sanitised (and cowardly) act of killing from distance, but few of the same heroes could really get messy - it's a bit too much like real life.

I'm British, and one of the only things that make me proud of my miserable nation is the fact that our tight gun legislation and refreshing lack of macho twattery in regard to firearms ensures that we have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world. Christ, even our police don't want them, rightly determining that if they tool up they will merely be provoking and perpetuating an eternal arms race between one big dick posse and the next. Grow up America, and look to yourselves. Your obsession with the firearm is ensuring that thousands of your citizens die needlessly each year. It's not big, it's not clever and it sure as hell ain't cool, Tarantino or no Tarantino.

Selah

Now give me just a minute to recover from this troll's horrible stench.

cough...ack...urgh...

Time for and all-out Idiotarian Fisking!

<draws ClueBat(TM)*> WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! CRASH!

1. If your idea of a gun control opponent is someone who is continously fed NRA 'paranoid' propaganda, then sad to say, YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED!

2.Anothe stereotype: gun owners are people who imagine themselves to be action heroes. See above.

3.If anything, your gun control laws result in very high gun crime rates. See top of post.

4. Again, see 1 and 2.


----------
*-What's a ClueBat(TM) anyway? If you ask nicely, I might tell.

humans need guns at points in their life for survial and defense. so banning could be a problem on survival.
I disagree! You need guns as a policeman or a soldier, but not else! If you see how many people are accidently killed in countries which allow guns, than there should be no other decision than banning them, like most countries in the world do.

Looking at the Twentieth century you are 80 times more likely to be killed by government than by criminals or terrorists.

Guns are the fundamental check on government... When the RULE OF LAW fails to nonviolently stem the tide of tyranny, citizens have a fundamental right to arm themselves against state exersize of arbitrary power and oppression.


The global market has a point although I fear his one-size-fits-all politics are perhaps indicative of a more immature mind. Perhaps to him his parents making him clean his room counts as tyranny and would shoot them. Is that not the kind of mentality that lead to the Columbine massacre - I don't like the world around me so I will remove anyone who has annoyed me - typically childish, typically American.

We all want rights to be protected peacefully ... but you can't always count on it. You must hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

America wouldn't even exist if it weren't for private gun ownership.

Labor camps are okay (more desirable than prisons in fact), execution is okay in THE MOST EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, torture is never justified.


WARNING :!: WARING :!: WARNING
Labor camps stands for slavery. Funny thing is that I actually think they are not all that bad. I guess my point on slavery is not that fundametal afterall. However, :!:I:!: seem to be aware of that. Let me use this message to make other people aware of it too :).

Torture, grin, you know that they still do a form of torture in police stations nowadays in our first rate democratic countries. Like not giving a chair, or not letting you have a drink during the interrogation until you comply with them ;). Intresting to think about, other topic though :).

what if guns were to stoped being made all factories closed and the employes given new jobs and a btter life than know ing that thier job helps kill people and animals.

so that is why guns are not ok




guns are they ok?

A fine idea, but totally impractical. There have already been a couple of discoveries of illegal gun manufacturing enterprises in Britain since they tightened their gun control laws within the last few years. Gun prohibition laws won't work for a lot of the same reasons that America's "war on drugs" has been such an abysmal failure: if there is a market for good, people will find a way to supply it. The more hard to come by guns are, the more illegal manufacturers of guns will be able to profit, which will result in more people illegally manufacturing guns. Even ceasing legal production of guns would still leave many on the streets, and plenty of incentive for people to make them illegally. And what's worse, only those without regard for the law would have guns.

Face the facts:
we need guns for survival now days. in some countries and towns you walk out on the street and get shot at. so what do you just take it. i mean i knwo that there should be restrictions to a POINT but you cannot ban guns to everyone but cops and military and gov't officials. its just not right.

Got you. That sentense was a fatal mistake.
You see I am 95% convinced that you where not talking about cops shooting at you, in in that case you where probably walking while there was a night clock. (I mean that you have to be inside when night falls).

Oke, in the other case it was because civilians where shooting at you. Your proposal quite obviously was to shoot back. Did you also noticed that the criminal was the FIRST who had the gun. If the criminal didn't have one, you would have hardly a point in having one yourself.
And that is one of the reasons people are not allowed to have guns. It is much easier for a governement to crack down on guns possesion of criminals if they don't have to figure out all the time if someone is nice person, or a not so nice person. Especially when people haven't been sentenced yet, so you can't threat him different. And in the mean time gun fantics say, don't take the gun away, don't take the gun away. Which can also implies, don't take the gun away from the criminal, don't take the gun away from the criminal.

I know this needs a the government that will take the guns away from the criminals.
But in my opinion if between the two of you a fire fight comes and one of you two get shot, I don't think anybody should say, wow that was unfair. If you carry gun, be prepared to use it. Your willingness to kill, means you have to accept that you might get killed in return. This for the criminal, as you agree acording to your statement. But the same saying saying counts for you to however. Just because you are right, doesn't give you a better aim :P.

It does saddens me a lot if however a criminal with a gun kills someone who is defenselesss (in other words, not willing to join the arms race). I think that is just plainly unfair.

If you are anti-gun then you ultimately hate freedom. You obviously do not know your history. The only reason that "democracy" occurred was because the ordinary person was able to carry weapons (take a look at the invention of the phalanx and the birth of democracy in Athens....hhhmmm). Guns=Power that is it! In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, but we DO NEED freedom.
As the Russian comedian Yakov Smirnov said, "In Russia, we had freedom of speech; it was freedom AFTER speech we did not have."
Anti-gun people think we live in such an enlightened society that we can just "voice" our opinions and that is great! Hogwash...live in the real world!
Study history, you pass arms control and you restrict freedom.
I view my freedom as precious...you will NOT take it.

The citizens of Nianacio are free to own any guns they want (even machine guns). If Nianacio is ever invaded, the armed citizens will pose a significant threat to any passing invaders.

If you think gun control reduces crime, perhaps you should visit this (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html) link.

[/quote="link"]An increase in violent crime that appears to follow a tightening of controls on gun ownership and use is consistent with economic reasoning. Gun control laws are most likely to be obeyed by people who are otherwise law-abiding if, indeed, they are obeyed by anybody. Thus measures that apply equally to criminals and noncriminals, if they affect behavior at all, are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among noncriminals. As the popular slogan puts it: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws. But if there is an effect, it is likely to benefit criminals in two ways: fewer armed victims to worry about and fewer criminal justice resources to devote to prosecuting real criminals. If fewer potential victims have guns for defense, the balance of power tilts slightly toward criminals. The overall crime rate tends to increase, although guns may not be used in any more crimes because, on average, victim resistance is lowered.

Because more police resources are spent on gun registration, gun law enforcement and gun law convictions, fewer resources are available to deter real criminals. Arrests for weapons violations already exceed 220,000 per year,25 a nontrivial load on the criminal justice system. A Chicago judge from one of the two courtrooms exclusively dedicated to trying gun law offenses in that city testified a few years ago:26
[/quote]

So what happened. Right nobody obeyed the law creating a large series of seemingly unimportant cases and an overload of the system. This was because if it is a law, does not mean everybody wants that law.
Suppose all the law-obeyeding citizens had given the gun. That would reverse the picture completely. One criminals would have guns. That would make the job of the police easy. We don't have to bloody proof anything whether you commited the robbery or wanted too. We don't care. You owned a gun, there for we can sentence you. If only cirminals have guns, it suddenly gets easy to recognise them.
There was a funny commercial in our country that pointed a black bar infront of people who where criminals with something like that, if it was that easy. (it was for somekind of insurence company I think) Well, this law basically makes buts that black bar in front of there eyes. All you have to check if it is has a gun, and you can assume it is a criminal. That is if all non-criminals had actually given up there gun, or at least had stored in on a place controlled by the state. He, guns do cost money :P.

The citizens of Nianacio are free to own any guns they want (even machine guns). If Nianacio is ever invaded, the armed citizens will pose a significant threat to any passing invaders.

If you think gun control reduces crime, perhaps you should visit this (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html) link.

There was an old joke between our friend about the game, "UFO, enemy unknown". When a alien invaded in america we started to laught. Hell those bloodly aliens would have chance. We do even bother going there. The locals will be perfectly able to kick bloody alien ars themselves :).

Actually I am not fundamentally against gun control, certainly not under all circumstances.

In Athens was no real democracy: It was just a minority, which had the right to vote.
In Russia guns wouldn't have helped you. It was no attack that ended the dictatorship, but the desparete situation of the USSR. Why does anyone think it increases your freedom if you are allowed to own weapons?

@TGM: Please specify the definition of: 'killed by the government'. Crime is also low in the Germany of today. Have you seen the film 'bowling for columbine'? There is a very interesting statistic in it about guns and crimes.

Killed by the government: Killed by police, soldiers, executioners, and other agents acting in the name of a government OR died as a result of government policies directed at killing people (The forced famine in the Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward in China, etc.)

The peace/war distribution is about:
50 Million Wartime Combat Deaths
50 Million Wartime Non-Combat Deaths
100 Million Peacetime Deaths

And I've seen Bowling for Columbine. It's BS. It's very funny BS, but BS nonetheless.

Actually if these figures where to they are quite easily explained.
Have any idea why state leaders just LOVE to war :). Really, when they do people seem to forget there differnces for a short while and start worrying about the enemy.
Hitler used it to great success. His rule was based on creating hate for an enemy. It did wonders in britian during the war. The harmony under the people was huge. Studies said people lived longer, despite the war was going on.
And the funny thing is, the more dangerous the enemy, the better it works. Just becarefull you don't pick an enemy stronger than you. Something hitler would have been wise to keep in mind :P.
Afcourse sometimes it backfires and people protest to much, and then it doesn't create harmoney. One of the reasons things like the "tonkin" incidents are so important. Or any good solid justification to start a war. You really think they attack because of that, no that is just the final step to get you so far. Especially in modern democracies where people quite know how to a raise voice.

When there is no war anymore, people start turning on each other again and on there governments. You can't turn on your government in a war, it will make you lose the war. And the governement strikes back again :P. Afcourse usually supported by the majority.

Just over 1 in 500 gun owners use their guns irresponsibly.

Probably more than 1 in 500 car owners use their cars irresponsibly. Ban cars?

Postscript. I shouldn't of wrote that. Some people seriously want to ban cars.

Yes, but cars serves a very strong economic purpuse that is difficulty to argue for guns.

We did order drivers licences though :P

It is not just the irresponsible use of guns, which forms a problem, but also the accidents, that happen when you are owning guns. For example: if you own a gun, the risk that one of your family members gets shot is 22 times more probable! (Sorry for my faulty english :( )

Actually the chance that you will shoot somebody should be infinitely higher since you can't shoot somebody without a gun.

But still... empirically the chance that you will be arrested and shot by Secret Police is higher than being accidentally shot by a family member.

Also here, since the secret police is under control of the government and under those are under controled by the voters (in some nations), they serve the purpose of protecting the majority.

I would like to see you argue that being accidentally shot by a family member serves a purpose.
Or that a family member shoots himself from mishandeling. Don't know if that was included.


grin I know, evolution. You where to stupid to stay alive :P, sorry just joking.

And you really think, that you can escape or hnder them from arresting you, when you are armed? Dreamer!

No but when everyone in the country is armed....

Back to ....well.....actually I don't even know a culture like that.
Governements are representatives of the people. Whatever system they use to decide who has that right or not. There is a tiny little problem you seem to forget if you abolish government. Or democratic way of voting for you wishes.

You know that for example about 50% of the people are one party and the other about 50% are the other. You are not fighting the government. You are fighting the major that government represents. If you like to gun it all out, you will notice that 50% of the peoples happens not to agree with you. This has actually happened once. It was the american civil war. A must intresting war considering new war technics, anyways.

Somehow it seems unconceable to most people that other people do not think like do. If you suggest shooting for your freedom. Do realize that others will respond like wise getting either one of you death. If everybody would follow that idea, that ends up in a LOT of killing.

One major purpose of the government is making sure people slaughter each other each time something doesn't go there way.

in the uk we have banned handguns and it is actually a plus point for our survival rate
This is also a lie. Rates of violent crime, gun crime, and homocide have risen since the ban on handguns.

You are quite funny in calling everything a lie.

I actually heard and read things that suggest those statistics. It is quite possible that there are statitics that the opposite. But saying it a lie is kinda funny.

Last thing I heard was something in zwitserland. Every citizen has a rifle and some ammo at home in case the nation gets invaded. There is the advantage. But I also heard something that it result to comparity a death figure because of that.

The fundamental right to revolt against severely illegitimate government is guarenteed by the US Declaration of Independence, which should be enshrined in International Law:

"Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established shall not be changed for light and transient reasons /.../ but when a long chain of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce them [citizens] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

That is considered one of the advantages of conscription. Because so many non-pro's are in the army the army is a better representation of the opinion of the people. Armies play a vital role in revolutions. Though technically not allowed to :P. Even if the revolutions all have guns, the army, if still loyal to the government, would still smack the hell out of them by weaponss the people didn't have. Resulting only in an extreem bloodbath. Or are you suggesting every village has its on f-16, and a couple tanks just incase they want to revolt :P?

Actually if the people are not armed, and only do it with protests and economic paralizations, there is a good chance the army refuses to move in. If however when they start shoot, I can garantee you the army has much less objection.

Hey I say that If you have a right cause to Pull the trigger then do so other then that I say the person who pulled the trigger should be sent to prison for LIFE!!! :x

Again one of those funny idea that it is only you who thinks to know thay you have the right cause and the other has not. When somebody pulls the trigger on you he/shet believed too, possible in a warped mind, that it has the right cause.

The only troubles, how do you know for sure if are one of those with a warped mind or that you are not :P.

Don't bother trying to figure it out, it is been tried by philosphers. Not to that great success. I am completely confident I can rebuff any attempt from you to falsify that statement :)

Or are you suggesting every village has its on f-16, and a couple tanks just incase they want to revolt :P?That would be cool - having a village tank. 8) Actually, there are people in Nianacio with fighter jets, tanks, and even an aircraft carrier (as there are IRL).

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

I disagree! You need guns as a policeman or a soldier, but not else! If you see how many people are accidently killed in countries which allow guns, than there should be no other decision than banning them, like most countries in the world do.

Keeping firearms in the hands of the police is the best way to insure a police state. And the police are in fact rarely in a position to do anything when it comes to crime. The most they can do is punish the person who murders you - which doesn't help you much.

And if gun control like the above really worked, then why do many counties with highly restrictive gun laws still have gun crime while at the same time other countries with relatively little restriction on gun ownership have relartively little crime.

The fact of the matter is that firearms ownership has very little to do crime. Criminals, by definitition, do not obey the law. They are going to be able to obtain firearms anyway. Law abiding cirizens should be able to protect themselves.

If we use you ctiteria to ban things based on the number of deaths they cause, guns would be way down the list. Bathtubs, hights and electricity are far more likely to injure or kill than guns. Should we ban these too?

section two, maybe bit in a democracy you can change that. Those policemen only have guns because the majority thinks it is a good idea. I already had that story about everybody using a gun to get its point across instead of using vote :P

Section three. I can't control that. But sometimes, lots of time you can take other considertions in account. In my country I can say that the amount of non-criminals getting shot is not that high. Luckily they seem to use the guns only on one other. Maybe criminals should have a non-gun code. Saves there bloody asses. Just back to good beatings.

Section three, yes, but it makes it easier to spot criminals at least :P.

Section four. True, but each serves an economic purpose. If you however dare to use that wisdom. I am quite sure you where not concern with the terrorist attacks either. The odds of anybody getting killed by that is so little. ;)

I f you are holding a gun at another human then it is your choice to either pull the trigger of the gun or put it down and save another human from an unjustified death.

Gosh where do you get get the idea from that it is unjustified?!?!?
Sure I seem to show the opinion regulary that I think the one holding the gun is probably not able to make that decision.

But appearantly there seem to be justifications once in a while.
Like if I didn't, he would should me (self defense).
We are at war, and our nations happens not be pacifistic.
Somebody commited a crime so horrible against society putting him to death is the only option. In old times, actually often done by fire squads. I like to call that bigger guns. Or before that swords, and axes. Which where the best weapons they had at that time.
Though most would question the rightiousness of the latter. The first two are however readily accepted.
Actually the first excuse was the most important one. Shot or be shot. And that is the one that most pro-gun people believe in.

Trying to convince people with a basis view, axiom, that is not accept by the person you trying to convince is usually not getting anybody anywhere.



hopefully you will never have to make that choice and then you will know what I am talking about and understand hat some people are good or bad on the outside but inside we all think and work the same so killing because they are evil or because you think that they are to good for your liking just remember that you are the same as them every one is so that does not give you any right to kill them.

Guns are they ok I say no but I have justified why and why you should agree to and help save our fine beautiful world and maybe even our universe.
Could you please rewrite it so that I can follow this main part of your argument, speech.

Did you ever think that criminals are unlikely to refrain from using firearms on account of laws against them?
Even if they don't have guns, these are not required for offensive violence of the sort undertaken by criminals, as anyone who has confronted two or three husky young men equipped with knives and clubs can attest. The presence of firearms favors the victim, in the case of criminal attacks, because it levels the playing field. Criminals are cowards; they act when they have an advantage, such as numbers, physical strength, or surprise. Guns neutralize those advantages, and put the criminal at risk. If the victim is armed with a gun, they put their own lives at risk by attacking, even if their numbers are greater, even if they have guns. Criminals don't like being put at risk.
If there's a kind of gun control that has any merit, it consists in making it more difficult for criminals to possess firearms. Harsher penalties for using a gun in a crime, stricter enforcement of laws forbidding felons to possess guns. If you want to reduce crime, act against the criminal, not the victim.

Grin. You know I expected this too. Was really suprised when I heard of in south africe. Somebody got robbed with a baseball bat and knife. I mean with the odds that the victim was carrying a gun so stacked against them, and in the description that person gave about south africa people would not hesitate to use it.

I like to add criminals might be all those things, and are stupid and/or desperte too. Having guns doesn't solve the problem either :-S

No one is suggesting, Rejistania, that you be required to arm yourself or defend yourself; if you prefer to be a helpless victim, that is your prerogative. We ask only that you not seek to impose your preference on others.

We don't try to impose the limitation on you. We try to impose the limation on the criminals. But since it is so darn hard to keep you two appart, (because of the cunning of the crimals) we feel we have little choice.

I did not say, that I would prefer to be helpless, but as you said, criminals work by suprise or by higher numbers and in this case I'd rather see them without arms then armed, because that enhances my chance to survive. (What does your gun help you, when suddently someone or some persons point guns at you and shoot when you move?)
You did say that you would prefer not to defend yourself.
Your choice is not to see criminals armed or unarmed. Most likely they cannot be prevented from having firearms; certainly they will have equally lethal weapons. It may surprise you to learn that you are more likely to survive a shooting than a stabbing. Getting shot is nothing at all like the sanitized nonsense you see on TV; it's rare for a gunshot wound to cause instant collapse, and most gunshot victims survive. Stabbing victims more often than not bleed to death. The advantages of a gun are range and ease of use, not lethality.
The kind of ambush killing you describe is extremely rare (outside of gang warfare) and for good reason. The criminal wishes to be close to his victim, to despoil him quickly; he wishes to avoid drawing attention (and gunshots are VERY loud); he wishes to avoid killing, as this will create the possibility of a police investigation and a serious punishment. In fact, most would prefer to avoid any actual violence, and get what they desire by intimidation.
Criminals don't want to be killed, which is why, as I explained earlier, guns tend to equalize conditions, even if everyone has them. Of course in a firefight between one person and five, the one will lose, but any of the five might also die - or wind up on death row. Criminals prefer easy victims.

Actually I have been robbed. And that was at best a knife. I have heard of somebody getting robbed by a gun. But having one is not at all necassery. The gun was drawn only after the victim refused. I know somebody who however was cut by knife, before was asked to give the money. Well I feel a lot safer being robbed by knife. And I am very glad for the guy that he was cut first by a KNIFE, not shot first by gun.

About surving wounds. Thank god to our medical expert, getting somebody to the hospital fast enough does miricals. If I am shot by a gun, I would prefere it to be right in front of the entrance to the hospital :P.

Foolish, myopic and ill informed. It amazes me how many people still subscribe to NRA crafted paranoid propaganda.

Guns kill people. Why? Because you are disassociated from the act. Killing at distance is like a computer game - it's not YOU pulling the trigger, it's whichever 'roided up muscle muppet is currently riding high in the action movie charts that you care to imagine youself as. Striking blows for justice, vengeance and manly pride is ok, apparently.

Thing is, you just have to make the tiniest move of your index finger to fulfil all your testosterone-fuelled wank fantasies in one go. To kill with a knife, however, is very different: imagine having to actually stick the thing in and then wiggle it around to ensure the rupture of as many internal organs as possible - if you really want to kill, that is.

I reckon that plenty of people could subscribe to the sanitised (and cowardly) act of killing from distance, but few of the same heroes could really get messy - it's a bit too much like real life.

I'm British, and one of the only things that make me proud of my miserable nation is the fact that our tight gun legislation and refreshing lack of macho twattery in regard to firearms ensures that we have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world. Christ, even our police don't want them, rightly determining that if they tool up they will merely be provoking and perpetuating an eternal arms race between one big dick posse and the next. Grow up America, and look to yourselves. Your obsession with the firearm is ensuring that thousands of your citizens die needlessly each year. It's not big, it's not clever and it sure as hell ain't cool, Tarantino or no Tarantino.

Selah

You know. I can support your story by the actions of a pacifist. He was horrified about the sickness of cutting people up close. However shooting from a destance, definity if it was against ships and other things where you didn't see the person dieing, was no problem for him :P

I don't really support it him. But I think you are right. People find it much more easier to kill if it isn't messy :). And if they can distans them selves from the act. When during the war the atomic bomb was dropped it was just an order. If the president had to go and cut up each casulty I think his stomach would turn around :P.

Nope, i think the answer is that you make the punishments harder. Why not use executing, torturing and labor camps? Especially the last one, the criminals work for free and do whatever you want.

Labor camps are okay (more desirable than prisons in fact), execution is okay in THE MOST EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, torture is never justified.


And what do you call the time spend waiting to die? Or the green mile? If that's not torture, then I'm not a meat machine with a single band of light in me.

Okay time to settle the debate.

First, the argument that tighter gun control or a ban on guns will cause a decrease in gun violence and gun related crime is completely flase. That theory is has been proven to be antilogical. Sure it sounds like it should work but when its put into practice it just doesnt, the same way that communism sounds good but doesnt work. The PROVEN FACT :!: (just look through the other posts on this forum for solid evidence) is that when countries and states increase gun control or ban guns, gun related crime increases because the criminals know there is less of a chance that they will be confronted with a greater or equal threat when they go to commit their crime of choice. This is an example of the basic law of risk of economics.

Second, the argument that guns are unsafe and are dangerous to children is overstated. True guns are dangerous but they are far less dangerous then the automobile, and i dont see anyone outlawing cars in the near future. FACT :!: more people are killed per automobile by automobiles then people by firearms per firearm. FACT :!: more underaged children are killed every year by getting ahold of mommie and daddies keys and killing themselvews behind the wheel the accidently shooting themselves with a firearm. FACT :!: it is much safer for a child to operate a 22 cal. rifle then the smallest compact car.

Guns are extreamlly powerful and need to be treated with respect just like a lot of things that we use every day. They are necessary for defense because the fact is that bad people will always commit crimes with them and good people need them to fight back with. The world may have been safer and better off if they were never invented, but now that they are here we deal with them logicly, they are far too powerful to be dealt with ideologicly.

If anything, Britain has had a surge in gun crime, thanks to gun control laws.
Yes britain has a surge in gun crime. Could you please make the link more specific to the part where it says thanks to gun control laws. Because I was under the impression it has gun control laws for a very long time. I actually think of the time those funny bobbies weren't even armed :P.


Now give me just a minute to recover from this troll's horrible stench.

cough...ack...urgh...

Time for and all-out Idiotarian Fisking!

<draws ClueBat(TM)*> WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! CRASH!

1. If your idea of a gun control opponent is someone who is continously fed NRA 'paranoid' propaganda, then sad to say, YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED!

2.Anothe stereotype: gun owners are people who imagine themselves to be action heroes. See above.

3.If anything, your gun control laws result in very high gun crime rates. See top of post.

4. Again, see 1 and 2.

My congratulation on your your beautiful first counter argument. If you would leave it at that I would be thinking you where afraid you where losing the argument (it is a common response).

1. I agree with,
2. But why do you try confirm it then on me :P
I thought most are just concern citizens trying to play it safe just in case. With praying to god it is a purchase they will ever need to use it.
3. Please point out a more specific story. Facts are useful. However I could not yet find the place where it also supports your statement.

If those arguments where to represent wack, wack, wack, crash I think it sounds more like a couple of bitch slappings. :P

what if guns were to stoped being made all factories closed and the employes given new jobs and a btter life than know ing that thier job helps kill people and animals.

so that is why guns are not ok




guns are they ok?

A fine idea, but totally impractical. There have already been a couple of discoveries of illegal gun manufacturing enterprises in Britain since they tightened their gun control laws within the last few years. Gun prohibition laws won't work for a lot of the same reasons that America's "war on drugs" has been such an abysmal failure: if there is a market for good, people will find a way to supply it. The more hard to come by guns are, the more illegal manufacturers of guns will be able to profit, which will result in more people illegally manufacturing guns. Even ceasing legal production of guns would still leave many on the streets, and plenty of incentive for people to make them illegally. And what's worse, only those without regard for the law would have guns.

That and the inability of nations to defend themselves :P. Though I believe a proposal like that is actually incirculation.

I do like to note that it is possible to unite these two cases. Gun control, and nations defense. Choices about that are someone based on the same arguments. However this as far as I go in opening pandora's box. If another wants to open it complety he is free to do so though.

Lots of messages. Actually mostly meant for the person I quoted, or somebody who want to make up its mind. (though a bit unfair because I seem to be biased). When I come back I might try to make some statements in favor of free guns.

Okay time to settle the debate.

First, the argument that tighter gun control or a ban on guns will cause a decrease in gun violence and gun related crime is completely flase. That theory is has been proven to be antilogical. Sure it sounds like it should work but when its put into practice it just doesnt, the same way that communism sounds good but doesnt work. The PROVEN FACT :!: (just look through the other posts on this forum for solid evidence) is that when countries and states increase gun control or ban guns, gun related crime increases because the criminals know there is less of a chance that they will be confronted with a greater or equal threat when they go to commit their crime of choice. This is an example of the basic law of risk of economics.

Second, the argument that guns are unsafe and are dangerous to children is overstated. True guns are dangerous but they are far less dangerous then the automobile, and i dont see anyone outlawing cars in the near future. FACT :!: more people are killed per automobile by automobiles then people by firearms per firearm. FACT :!: more underaged children are killed every year by getting ahold of mommie and daddies keys and killing themselvews behind the wheel the accidently shooting themselves with a firearm. FACT :!: it is much safer for a child to operate a 22 cal. rifle then the smallest compact car.

Guns are extreamlly powerful and need to be treated with respect just like a lot of things that we use every day. They are necessary for defense because the fact is that bad people will always commit crimes with them and good people need them to fight back with. The world may have been safer and better off if they were never invented, but now that they are here we deal with them logicly, they are far too powerful to be dealt with ideologicly.

FACT :!: We are all meat machines with a single line of light through the centre. FACT :!: Putting 'FACT :!: ' before a sentence makes it more believable. FACT :!: The first sentence in this paragraph is true, the second isn't.

If anything, Britain has had a surge in gun crime, thanks to gun control laws.
Yes britain has a surge in gun crime. Could you please make the link more specific to the part where it says thanks to gun control laws. Because I was under the impression it has gun control laws for a very long time. I actually think of the time those funny bobbies weren't even armed :P.


Now give me just a minute to recover from this troll's horrible stench.

cough...ack...urgh...

Time for and all-out Idiotarian Fisking!

<draws ClueBat(TM)*> WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! CRASH!

1. If your idea of a gun control opponent is someone who is continously fed NRA 'paranoid' propaganda, then sad to say, YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED!

2.Anothe stereotype: gun owners are people who imagine themselves to be action heroes. See above.

3.If anything, your gun control laws result in very high gun crime rates. See top of post.

4. Again, see 1 and 2.

My congratulation on your your beautiful first counter argument. If you would leave it at that I would be thinking you where afraid you where losing the argument (it is a common response).

1. I agree with,
2. But why do you try confirm it then on me :P
I thought most are just concern citizens trying to play it safe just in case. With praying to god it is a purchase they will ever need to use it.
3. Please point out a more specific story. Facts are useful. However I could not yet find the place where it also supports your statement.

If those arguments where to represent wack, wack, wack, crash I think it sounds more like a couple of bitch slappings. :P

Remember Dunblane, in 1996? Well, the British Government banned all handguns (the following year, I think). It could be a coincidence, but gun crime was recently at its highest since 1993.

BTW, it's WHACK as I am using a bat. A ClueBat(TM), to be exact.

You know when you ban handguns, owning one becomes a gun-related crime, so it is natural to see this surge since your widening the definition of a gun-crime. Just like making pickpocketing legal will reduce pickpocket related crimes, making it illegal again will cause a rise in the crime rate.

Now if you showed me that handgun murders have gone up you might actually have a case for gun control not working.

You know when you ban handguns, owning one becomes a gun-related crime, so it is natural to see this surge since your widening the definition of a gun-crime. Just like making pickpocketing legal will reduce pickpocket related crimes, making it illegal again will cause a rise in the crime rate.

Now if you showed me that handgun murders have gone up you might actually have a case for gun control not working.

Actually most secret police organizations as well as organized crime perfer submachine guns to the pistol variety.

well if their secret police i'd also assume that they'd want silencers to go with it, but isn't this besides the point?

well if their secret police i'd also assume that they'd want silencers to go with it, but isn't this besides the point?

The point is only 1 in 500 gun owners use their guns irresponsibly. The other 499 are merely being deprived of their right to defend against crime and tyranny (the mafia and the secret police).

About the gun crime/murder part:That would be true of an initial peak in gun crime shortly after the passing of gun control laws, but it's been 6 years since 1997 and the gun crime is steadily climbing.

it all comes down to civil rights. if the government bans guns, where will they stop (since they wont be forced to stop)? what if they decide saying things against the government is bad and keeps us from saying things. While in the US banning firearms is considered rather liberal, it can be seen as the first step to a dictatorship and oppression. If we lose one right, when will we lose the next and which one will it be?
and for those who say guns kill people, if I want you dead, I wont need a gun; a knife, or a bottle, or a baseball bat, or a rabid monkey will do just fine in killing you.

as i said show me statistics of gun violence rates. Gun crime shows nothing.

Also you must compare crime growth to growth of the population.

as for the issue about the 1 in 500 using a gun irresponsibly, im for regulation, not outright bans.

as i said show me statistics of gun violence rates. Gun crime shows nothing.

Also you must compare crime growth to growth of the population.

as for the issue about the 1 in 500 using a gun irresponsibly, im for regulation, not outright bans.

1 in 300 drivers use their cars irresponsibly. Should we have intensive background checks for people who wnat to buy cars?

It's not really statistically significant.

as i said show me statistics of gun violence rates. Gun crime shows nothing.Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
How's that?

howabout primary sources?

howabout primary sources?

Primary sources like... the testimony of someone who was just shot at?

That's just anecdotal... this isn't teh kind of study that lends itself to primary sources.

primary sources as in the places which the articles quoted from.

The data itself not quotes from it.

And my stance is more for the registration of guns, a short waiting period, basic background checks, and removal of certain types of rounds and weapons (automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, etc.) and mandatory safeties.

none of these affect the responsible gun owner

The background checks are to make sure someone who hasn't commited previous crimes with a gun doesn't get a hold of another, just like those who got their license removed can't immediately go get another license.

It is much easier for a governement to crack down on guns possesion of criminals if they don't have to figure out all the time if someone is nice person, or a not so nice person... If only cirminals have guns, it suddenly gets easy to recognise them... We don't try to impose the limitation on you. We try to impose the limation on the criminals. But since it is so darn hard to keep you two appart, (because of the cunning of the crimals) we feel we have little choice...
If you don't want the trouble of figuring out all the time who is and is not nice, you can just dispense with all those tedious legal procedures and have everyone remotely suspicious put in a gulag... that's the leftist tradition, after all.
Here's an idea for keeping us apart that you can understand: the criminals are the ones that rape, murder, rob, assault, and steal. Oh, but they don't wear a sign on them that says they do those things? (they would if we branded them when we caught them...) Guess what - they won't wear a sign that says they're carrying a gun, either. Unless you search every citizen every few hours, you won't find out which ones are carrying guns.
Of course, just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that they are a real criminal - that they rape, murder, rob, assault, or steal. Criminals aren't the only ones that might choose to defy a law in their own interest. Faced with a choice between being helpless against a likely criminal attack or the remote possibility of being caught with an illegal weapon (how often does a normal person get searched?), many people would probably decide that civil disobedience was the best choice. The biggest chance of getting caught is if the weapon has to be used, and in that case, using it may bear the lesser penalty. The gun law then becomes nothing more than a tool with which to persecute someone who is already a victim of crime - which suits the proponents of gun control perfectly, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I would like to see you argue that being accidentally shot by a family member serves a purpose.
Or that a family member shoots himself from mishandeling. Don't know if that was included.
Nothing in life is without a price of some kind, and at some point people have to take some responsibility for their own actions. If one is careless with a gun, one puts oneself and possibly others in danger. The same with cars, machinery, chemicals, live electric wires, ladders, swimming pools... when someone uses one of these things carelessly, we don't try to ban it, we (hopefully) hold them responsible. But we accept that there is a certain price in life for having anything. We can't have cars, machines, chemicals, electricity, ladders, or swimming pools without occasional wrecks, amputations, poisonings, electrocutions, falls, and drownings. We try to minimize these things, but we live with a non-zero rate of occurrence. Likewise, we try to minimize the rate of accidental firearm injuries - and it is very much lower than that from any of the other things mentioned - but if we want to have any kind of protection against criminals, or to hunt or target shoot, we have to accept a non-zero rate of gun accidents. In fact, we have to accept it anyway, because there will always be guns whether we ban them or not. Life is a tradeoff between different risks, penalties, and benefits, not a sacrifice-free Heaven waiting for us to push the right buttons. The world is NOT completely safe, and it never will be; people will be safer if they take some responsibility for their own safety, but even then life comes without guarantees.

I am quite sure you where not concern with the terrorist attacks either. The odds of anybody getting killed by that is so little.Nope, not concerned with terrorists at all. What concerns me are assholes that pass on curves.

Guns kill people. Why? Because you are disassociated from the act. Killing at distance is like a computer game - it's not YOU pulling the trigger, it's whichever 'roided up muscle muppet is currently riding high in the action movie charts that you care to imagine youself as. Striking blows for justice, vengeance and manly pride is ok, apparently.

Thing is, you just have to make the tiniest move of your index finger to fulfil all your testosterone-fuelled wank fantasies in one go. To kill with a knife, however, is very different: imagine having to actually stick the thing in and then wiggle it around to ensure the rupture of as many internal organs as possible - if you really want to kill, that is.

I reckon that plenty of people could subscribe to the sanitised (and cowardly) act of killing from distance, but few of the same heroes could really get messy - it's a bit too much like real life.

This is mere imbecile emoting, a confused and trollish attempt to present an ad hominem as an argument; I bring it up to point out the error of the one pertinent claim made, vis., that it is mentally easier to commit an act of violence if one is less physically involved in the process. This is, a bit ominously, not true at all. Intimate participation in the most intense violence has no native repugnance to the human organism whatever, and in fact seems to be a major attraction of violence for many violent criminals. Violence is innately gratifying, at least to the male of the specie, and it's only socialization that makes any of us any different. Being face to face with the enemy doesn't make it harder to kill him, it intensifies the desire to do so. Primitive societies which employed only hand weapons, and killed their their enemies face to face, were far more violent than any modern society, killed an enormously higher proportion of their population with spears and clubs than modern nations ever have with cannon, machine guns, and bombs - and often as not, they preferred to take anatomical trophies and to torture and cannibalize their victims, very much up close and personal. Even among civilized nations, the persistent occurrence of wartime atrocities is notorious.
Also, the notion that killing someone at short range with a firearm is somehow "sanitised" displays a remarkable ignorance acquired from too much viewing of the very type of entertainment that the troll claims to disdain. Killing someone with a gun in real life has no resemblance at all to the way it is portrayed in the media, and it is indeed "really messy", rarely instantaneous, and nerve-wrackingly loud.
Hollywood portrayals of violence are a real disservice to anyone unacquainted with reality who might expect to use a gun in self defense. Stopping an assailant may very likely not be a matter of "point and click"; it's not uncommon for someone to continue an attack after having been shot once, and people have been killed with their own weapons because they did not have the presence of mind to continue firing at a screaming, bleeding, yet still determined assailant whom they had expected to simply fall over and lie quietly like a Hollywood extra.

In Russia guns wouldn't have helped you. It was no attack that ended the dictatorship, but the desparete situation of the USSR.
It was the Red Army, with its guns, that ended the dictatorship. The collapse was bloodless only because there was no government force with any hope of opposing the Red Army.
There's an important lesson here: perhaps the best protection against tyranny is not a populace armed to resist the military, but a populace that IS the military. This was the system envisioned by the founders of the U.S.A., but ironically it turned out to be the totalitarian U.S.S.R. that actually employed it, and was undone thereby. Universal military service may ultimately be the deciding factor in preserving the freedom of nations. (The sociologist Karl Mannheim noted that every society in history has wound up being ruled by its military class; the rise of democracy was preceded by changes in military technology that favored large citizen armies instead of small professional armies).

Or are you suggesting every village has its own f-16, and a couple tanks just in case they want to revolt?
That system has been employed in the past (Switzerland); its practibility for modern warfare is dubious. The Soviet system of universal conscription proved a sufficient safeguard in the end, and would probably have outperformed a Swiss-style militia of comparable size.

Even if the revolutions all have guns, the army, if still loyal to the government, would still smack the hell out of them by weaponss the people didn't have.
Just the way the U.S.A. smacked the hell out of Vietnam, or the Spanish smacked the hell out of the Dutch... material resources aren't everything in warfare, and the value of tanks and aircraft against partisans is limited. Nonetheless we prefer the principle of merging the people with the army, rather than opposing them.

People need to take reponsibility for their guns; I have no problem with gun ownership, but some people are just IDIOTS when it comes to basic safety. Case in point; kid is bullied at school, goes home, grabs the gun his parents left LOADED and unlocked and shoots himslef; then his parents have the balls to SUE the school for not stopping the bullying- they effectively blamed the administration.

Yep.... basically people should have the right to own guns; but as long as they're leagal we're gonna be stuck with bullet ridden moron voters.

In Russia guns wouldn't have helped you. It was no attack that ended the dictatorship, but the desparete situation of the USSR.
It was the Red Army, with its guns, that ended the dictatorship. The collapse was bloodless only because there was no government force with any hope of opposing the Red Army.
There's an important lesson here: perhaps the best protection against tyranny is not a populace armed to resist the military, but a populace that IS the military. This was the system envisioned by the founders of the U.S.A., but ironically it turned out to be the totalitarian U.S.S.R. that actually employed it, and was undone thereby. Universal military service may ultimately be the deciding factor in preserving the freedom of nations. (The sociologist Karl Mannheim noted that every society in history has wound up being ruled by its military class; the rise of democracy was preceded by changes in military technology that favored large citizen armies instead of small professional armies).
No, you are away from all facts. Let's see how communism was ended in the soviet block:
Polland: Solidarnosc (strikes of majorities of the population)
Hungary: peaceful transition because of a new leader
East germany: large monday demonstrations, the red army did not interfere, because they did not want to shoot peaceful protestors
Russia: Glasnost and Perestroika
OK, Rumania did change in a quick and bloody revolution, there you are right.

your idea will just lead to a point, were you expect from any citizen to obey all orders from above. Do I need to say what that means for freedom?

If you are anti-gun then you ultimately hate freedom. You obviously do not know your history. The only reason that "democracy" occurred was because the ordinary person was able to carry weapons (take a look at the invention of the phalanx and the birth of democracy in Athens....hhhmmm). Guns=Power that is it! In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, but we DO NEED freedom.
As the Russian comedian Yakov Smirnov said, "In Russia, we had freedom of speech; it was freedom AFTER speech we did not have."
Anti-gun people think we live in such an enlightened society that we can just "voice" our opinions and that is great! Hogwash...live in the real world!
Study history, you pass arms control and you restrict freedom.
I view my freedom as precious...you will NOT take it.

Perhaps a reworking of your historical knowledge is in order.
Athenians voted democratically because all the males had equal responsibility in defending the city not because a group of armed men demanded it. It is this principle that allowed women to get the vote so soon after the first world war - having run the home front, women had shown that they were capable of running a country and therefore shoukld be allowed to have a say in the way it's run.
It is also the logic employed by many of the ex-empire couutries with regards to their own self-determination.

Also I ask you would free speech immediately occur worldwide if guns were banned. If not then you can't also think that gun=free speech as you have already admitted that there is no link between them.
Guns have no value outside the killing of things and since they are so effective in killing free speech as you say then it is abhorrant that you hold the gun as such a symbol of it.

Are you in the Montana Militia or do you have a drug problem that has given you this paranoid mindset? :?:

This whole topic is senseless, in that if you are talking about a blanket ban on guns then you are talking about banning them from police and military alike.
If you are only talking about banning them from the civilian population then remember that most countries police forces are classified by law as civillians and come under civillian (not military) law.

In the UK our police are mostly unarmed, although each force has Armed Response teams. The Police that are armed however are still under civillian control and face being tried in a court of law if they do not follow, to the letter exact instructions in the deployment of weapons entrusted to them!.
There are three factors make it impossible to ban firearms of any kind.

1. Something that has been invented can never be uninvented (unfortunatly).

2. If you are of the criminal persuasion then you are not going to care either way.

3. What about Despotic Dictatorships, Rogue Nations etc

In principal I strongly believe in tighter gun control laws but if guns were banned completely disregarding the three above factors, We would still find ways of killing and maiming each other, be it knives, bows or the trusty blunt weapon that has stood its ground throughout history.

There are so many alternative ways to protect yourself if you meet a mugger, whether it be with pepper spray, an alarm, staying in a group, knowing a martial art, or running away very fast. There is no need to carry a weapon that can kill as easily as a gun.

Conscription is a loss of freedom in itself; it does not protect freedom.

To believe that you need a gun to protect yourself from secret police or that the army will turn round and start to massacre the citizens of its own country is mere paranoia (at least here in the West).

Guns and killing is given far too cool an image by the media, this is part of the problem.

...To believe that you need a gun to protect yourself from secret police or that the army will turn round and start to massacre the citizens of its own country is mere paranoia (at least here in the West)...

Yet it's happened to 200 million people in the last hundred of years, tens of millions of whom were from the West.

Any Super Duper Pinhead that finds pepper spray or Kung Fu to be a practicable defense against a mugger, burglar, rapist, or killer is certainly free to rely on such methods - at least until the lefties succeed in getting those banned, as well.

Any Super Duper Pinhead that finds pepper spray or Kung Fu to be a practicable defense against a mugger, burglar, rapist, or killer is certainly free to rely on such methods - at least until the lefties succeed in getting those banned, as well.

I know karate and how to use a gun...gee....the left must really be after my kind...oh, and a martial art can generally kill just as quick and more quietly than a gun, want me, the super duper pinhead to demonstrate on you sir?

I say destory all guns and revert to the simpler day of blades and staves. saddly this is on the difficult to impposable side of things

Tell ya what, Karate Chump, we'll have a contest - karate vs. 9 mm. I don't know karate, so I'll use the 9 mm.

contest - karate vs. 9 mm.

my I remind you i started this convo to stop guns and you immedeatly insult someones belifes and complety disregared ecerything that matters to him or her.

Tell ya what, Karate Chump, we'll have a contest - karate vs. 9 mm. I don't know karate, so I'll use the 9 mm.

What a sissy. At least use .40. 9mm is for pussies.

Say that when your thoracic cavity is full of 9 mm holes :o
Seriously, the most important thing is to hit someone in the first place, and 9 mm is cheaper to practice with than .40. Smaller weapon, less recoil, easier concealment - and stopping power is adequate with hollowpoints.

If you're dumb enough not to defend your life against an aggressor when you have the means to kill him, you deserve to die.
If you want to take away the right of others to defend their lives against aggression, you deserve to die.
Did youi ever thought, that there could be more reasons to protect against an aggressor, if guns are easily available? In countries, where guns are not that easy to get/steal, the chance is much lower to get shot.

yes, the odds of getting shot may be lower. the odds of dying, of being a victim of violent crime, they are still higher. rates of violent crime, except murder, are higher in england than in the US. the murder rate in the US drops to close to the rate in the UK when you factor out drug dealer on drug dealer murders over turf and cash. this leads one to believe that the WOD in the true culprit in the US murder rate, not the number of firearms. in fact the rate of firearms ownership has been steadily rising in the US for the last 100 years, and except during prohibition in the 1930's, the rate of violent crime has been decreasing. strange that more guns being purchased soem how coincides with the rate of criem going down eh?

I disagree! You need guns as a policeman or a soldier, but not else! If you see how many people are accidently killed in countries which allow guns, than there should be no other decision than banning them, like most countries in the world do.

In countries where guns are outlawed, who has guns? The military, the police, and the criminals. The reason that criminals have guns is because they are CRIMINALS and don't care about the law. This makes outlawing guns ineffective. Regardless of what is outlawed, people manage to get their hands on illegal items anyhow. Banning firearms only makes the law-abiding citizens more succeptable to being a victim at the hands of a criminal.

Add in the other arguements about firearms being a large deterrant to oppressive government, and I think the value of firearms becomes clear; an armed population is a check on criminals and corrupt government.

We will strongly oppose any legislation that bans firearms or any other weapons. We believe that all citizens have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary.

I believe there should be a background check before a gun is sold so that guns aren't sold to criminals.

Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

If you followed the law, you wouldn't be a criminal.

Rational Self Interest seems to be one of those people that just likes to disagree with others. I wonder how old he is? no matter, now sir (though you act like a child), do you regularly walk around with a nine? I doubt it. Therefore, karate or boxing or whatever fighting style you may prefer is a superior choice. It is completely concealed, you dont need any pesky licenses or bullets, and it goes everywhere with you and works on everyone (no need to worry about bullet proof vests). now, if you were 10 feet away from me and I was unarmed, yes you'd win. you'd of course, also be a coward, but thats of no matter if I'm dead. Now, if you were 3 feet from me and tried to get out your gun, that is a different story. but the question remains, will you have your gun with you when you run into trouble? most likely, no, unless you go looking for it. will my knowledge of martial arts be with me? absolutely. I find you lack the social and mental skills to debate anyone in a civilized manner, so this is most likely the last time I'll waste my time addressing you. I hope to oneday meet you, and that 9mm you carry around.

It takes less time and physical ability to learn how to properly use a gun than to master a martial art.

It takes less time and physical ability to learn how to properly use a gun than to master a martial art.

That's the point I've made over and over... nearly all violent criminals are young men. If you happen to be a young man with a black belt in karate, you will have an edge on the average criminal, but you still won't have much chance against, say, three toughs with knives. Your grandmother doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell against ANY criminal. That's why more women than men are licensed for concealed carry - they feel more vulnerable, and with good reason. Guns neutralize the criminal's typical advantage of force.

I am a blck belt and I have no ambition to do any crime or kill some one with a gun if i did I would break thier neck not shoot them.

The state should have a monopoly on guns and violance. Order is a fundamental aspect of any nation - strict gun control is necessary in to maintain order. Why would private citizens want to carry firarms in a peacetime situation? Greater gun control saves lives and ensures that the environment in which we live is a much safer one.

For example, the UK (my own country) is a safer and more pleasent place to live than the USA which has a far higher crime level (proportional). I like and admire the USA but there is the ridiculous situation where teenagers/children go around killing people with guns. People who advocate 'the constitutional right to bear arms' are either a, morally bankrupt b, very very very dumb c, accepting bribes from the arms industry d, need to be educated about the dangers of 'gun culture'

Of course people will always obtain firearms illegally but tight gun control works. Look at the crime figures for various nations and note which ones have tight control over firearms.

The state should have a monopoly on guns and violance. Order is a fundamental aspect of any nation - strict gun control is necessary in to maintain order. Why would private citizens want to carry firarms in a peacetime situation? Greater gun control saves lives and ensures that the environment in which we live is a much safer one.

For example, the UK (my own country) is a safer and more pleasent place to live than the USA which has a far higher crime level (proportional). I like and admire the USA but there is the ridiculous situation where teenagers/children go around killing people with guns. People who advocate 'the constitutional right to bear arms' are either a, morally bankrupt b, very very very dumb c, accepting bribes from the arms industry d, need to be educated about the dangers of 'gun culture'

Of course people will always obtain firearms illegally but tight gun control works. Look at the crime figures for various nations and note which ones have tight control over firearms.

3 things:

1. "Order without freedom is tyranny, freedom without order is anarchy."
(can't remember who). Looks like you are willing to trade your freedom for order.

2. The crime rate in the UK is much higher than in the US for all violent crimes except murder and rape.

3.Britain has had its share of school massacres too, like Dunblane in 1996.

Why would private citizens want to carry firarms in a peacetime situation?Primarily for self defense. Studies have repeatedly shown that defensive use of guns prevents one to three million crimes annually in the U.S.

Greater gun control saves lives and ensures that the environment in which we live is a much safer one. Greater gun control in the U.K. has caused the crime rate to soar. In the U.S., crime has dropped wherever the right to bear arms has been restored, but it continues to rise in those places where guns are banned.

People who advocate 'the constitutional right to bear arms' are either a, morally bankrupt b, very very very dumb c, accepting bribes from the arms industry d, need to be educated about the dangers of 'gun culture'People who argue for gun control are either a: Evil Stalinist authoritarian control freaks, b: Snivelling neurotic cowards, c: Criminals who want their victims disarmed, or d: Total imbeciles who wouldn't know a fact if it was inserted sideways into the nether portions of their digestive tract.

Look at the crime figures for various nations and note which ones have tight control over firearms.There's no correlation. Some countries with few (legal) private gun owners (e.g., the U.K.) have very high rates of crime, others with nearly universal gun ownership (e.g., Switzerland) have very low rates of crime. Crime obviously is not caused by guns; only the most severely retarded anti-self-defense lunatic would claim that crime did not exist before the invention of firearms.

I acknowledge that crime in the UK has gone up over the decades - particularly violent crime. What I dispute is that:

A, It is higher than that of the USA - I just can't accept that. In major US cities you have gangs of youths roaming the streets in armed gangs shooting and killing each other (aswell as innocent bystanders). Situations that you see in films like colors, I87 and Boyz in the Hood simply do not exist in the UK and indeed many other countries in Europe. True we have problem with youth crime, racial tension and problem areas/estates but this is absolutely small bananas compared to the situation in the USA. Also it was mentioned in a previous post that murder and rape are higher in the USA - Granted we have a bigger problem with football hooligans and our government is too inept/spineless to tackle the problem

B, Britain’s rise in crime is due to an increase in gun control. Not so, Britain no longer has a death penalty - Sentances for rapists and violent criminal are not nearly high enough. Britain currently has a left of centre government and too many left wing pressure groups influencing policy-making things easier for the criminal - Victims and ordinary people feel isolated and unsupported. Guns are becoming more popular with criminals - Drug dealer who import into Britain (Yardies and other foreign criminals) use firearms more hence our own native scum follow suit. Police armed response are on the increase and the situation escalates. You never know we might be just like the USA in a few decades time.

C, Gun control may be loose in Switzerland but the Swiss are a far more ordered and civil people than Americans (And us for that matter) - They have a sense of morality and are taught values - This use to be the way in the UK. It also helps that they are also a very rich nation with one of the highest standard of living's in the world (if not the highest). So there low crime rate has nothing with gun control or the absence of it.
D, I understand all of your other points (although I do not agree with them - I can see where you are coming from) about those who argue for gun control (You could say that point 'a' may be true - although there is nothing remotely stalinist or left wing about me). How are they 'snivelling cowards'?

Think about events that happen in your country. Columbine or the riots in L.A. or the emergence of these right wing white trash militia groups that have come into being, the amount of murder. Is the 'constitutional right to bear arms' really worth it?

You post does throw up one vaild point though. Lack of gun control is not the reason for the crime in the USA. Instead it greatly perpetuates and worsens the situation.

I acknowledge that crime in the UK has gone up over the decades - particularly violent crime. What I dispute is that:

A, It is higher than that of the USA - I just can't accept that. In major US cities you have gangs of youths roaming the streets in armed gangs shooting and killing each other (aswell as innocent bystanders). Situations that you see in films like colors, I87 and Boyz in the Hood simply do not exist in the UK and indeed many other countries in Europe. True we have problem with youth crime, racial tension and problem areas/estates but this is absolutely small bananas compared to the situation in the USA. Also it was mentioned in a previous post that murder and rape are higher in the USA - Granted we have a bigger problem with football hooligans and our government is too inept/spineless to tackle the problem

B, Britain’s rise in crime is due to an increase in gun control. Not so, Britain no longer has a death penalty - Sentances for rapists and violent criminal are not nearly high enough. Britain currently has a left of centre government and too many left wing pressure groups influencing policy-making things easier for the criminal - Victims and ordinary people feel isolated and unsupported. Guns are becoming more popular with criminals - Drug dealer who import into Britain (Yardies and other foreign criminals) use firearms more hence our own native scum follow suit. Police armed response are on the increase and the situation escalates. You never know we might be just like the USA in a few decades time.

C, Gun control may be loose in Switzerland but the Swiss are a far more ordered and civil people than Americans (And us for that matter) - They have a sense of morality and are taught values - This use to be the way in the UK. It also helps that they are also a very rich nation with one of the highest standard of living's in the world (if not the highest). So there low crime rate has nothing with gun control or the absence of it.
D, I understand all of your other points (although I do not agree with them - I can see where you are coming from) about those who argue for gun control (You could say that point 'a' may be true - although there is nothing remotely stalinist or left wing about me). How are they 'snivelling cowards'?

Think about events that happen in your country. Columbine or the riots in L.A. or the emergence of these right wing white trash militia groups that have come into being, the amount of murder. Is the 'constitutional right to bear arms' really worth it?

You post does throw up one vaild point though. Lack of gun control is not the reason for the crime in the USA. Instead it greatly perpetuates and worsens the situation.

Karate isn't going to help you in a stand off with a criminal with a gun unless you are *really* good at it.

Believe me, I've been in fist fights with people who say they were black belts in Karate. I knocked them to the ground with a punch to the face.

I believe that their should be some gun restrictions,but that they be up to the individual nation to decide what they are. I am an advid hunter and sportsmen, I believe that some people should not have guns, not because they are evil, yet that is one reason but because they are not educated about the weapon exsept hoew to pull the trigger and to point it at another living person, or thing. So yes we do need gun control but let the individual naion decide what they are.

Thank you for your time.
Monkey-Cracks

I acknowledge that crime in the UK has gone up over the decades - particularly violent crime. What I dispute is that:

A, It is higher than that of the USA - I just can't accept that.
Truth hurts, but numbers don't lie.

In major US cities you have gangs of youths roaming the streets in armed gangs shooting and killing each other (aswell as innocent bystanders). Situations that you see in films like colors, I87 and Boyz in the Hood simply do not exist in the UK and indeed many other countries in Europe. True we have problem with youth crime, racial tension and problem areas/estates but this is absolutely small bananas compared to the situation in the USA.
You watch too much American film and TV.

... Britain no longer has a death penalty - Sentances for rapists and violent criminal are not nearly high enough. Britain currently has a left of centre government and too many left wing pressure groups influencing policy-making things easier for the criminal - Victims and ordinary people feel isolated and unsupported.
It's much the same in the U.S. Though we fully support the death penalty, we don't believe that it's much of a deterrent when a murderer is more likely to choke to death on a sandwich than to be executed.

Guns are becoming more popular with criminals - Drug dealer who import into Britain (Yardies and other foreign criminals) use firearms more hence our own native scum follow suit. Police armed response are on the increase and the situation escalates.
Notice how this is happening despite the ban on firearms, just as we predicted it would.

You never know we might be just like the USA in a few decades time.
With one major difference, of course - some Americans, at least, are allowed to defend themselves.

C, Gun control may be loose in Switzerland but the Swiss are a far more ordered and civil people than Americans (And us for that matter) - They have a sense of morality and are taught values - This use to be the way in the UK. It also helps that they are also a very rich nation with one of the highest standard of living's in the world (if not the highest). So there low crime rate has nothing with gun control or the absence of it.
So you agree that gun control has nothing to do with crime?

Think about events that happen in your country. Columbine or the riots in L.A. or the emergence of these right wing white trash militia groups that have come into being, the amount of murder.
You watch too much American TV. Children are more likely to be struck by lightning than shot by a classmate, and you'd have more luck spotting a wild bear than a militiaman - not that any of the militia have ever done anything but play-acting anyway.
As for the L.A. riots, privately owned firearms were instrumental in protecting lives and property.

Is the 'constitutional right to bear arms' really worth it?
The right to bear arms is well worth having, Constitutional or not.

You post does throw up one vaild point though. Lack of gun control is not the reason for the crime in the USA. Instead it greatly perpetuates and worsens the situation.
On the contrary, gun control in the USA definitely makes the situation worse. Here, crime correlates inversely with gun ownership and the right to carry, and positively with gun control. In the nineties, a series of states enacted right-to-carry laws, and crime (including violent crime) fell sharply in those states, while it continued to rise elsewhere.

You mean that there are still uninformed people out there? People who don't want to research gun control statistics? People that still don't see that guns actually lower the crime rate?
Listen guns are as responsible for crime as pencils are the cause of mispellings.
Guns give power to the people. We do not want a democracy anywhere in the world. Democracy is 2 foxes and a chicken deciding what is for dinner. We need rule of law, and guns give ordinary citizens the right to uphold the law.

Among the rights I hold dear as an American, the one I will defend forever is my right to defend myself against my government. This is what our nation's founders were after when they crafted the Second Ammendment.

The following is from Encarta:

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Comment: Legal scholars disagree about what right is protected by the Second Amendment. Some scholars have concluded that this amendment affirms a broad individual right to gun ownership. Others interpret the amendment as protecting only a narrow right to possess firearms as members of a militia. Supreme Court decisions have not resolved the debate. However, the courts have held that the Second Amendment does not preclude certain government regulations on gun ownership, such as laws prohibiting ownership of firearms by felons.

End Encarta C&P

It really seems pretty straightforward to me. So long as the populace is armed, the government will think twice before enacting laws and regulations the populace won't go along with. Of course, a side benefit of that is that criminals will think twice about attacking an apparently harmless old lady.

I'd like to put one argument to bed....guns are tools. Nothing more. To imply that they kill is just flat wrong-headed. It is my intent to cause harm....not the tool I use. I supose the day may come when weaponry is given Artificial Intelligence sufficient enough to allow the weaponry itsself to determine targets and the viability of going after said targets. Hmmm-I think we may already be there...need to brush up on my military tech knowledge. Even so, where and how those weapons are deployed is a human decision....not the weapon's.

guns are for wimps. If you've got a problem with somebody, blackmail them in some engenious manner that does not make you look like the criminal. It's just as bad for him but better for you. Ban guns outright! We do not need them in a civilised world!

Would you have said that if you happened to be the young gentleman involved in a confrontation with a tank at Tiannamen Square? (my apologies for the butchered spelling) I think the young man might have welcomed a rifle...or an RPG-grin.

Incorruptibles, if you persist in posting things with which we disagree, certain photographs involving you, a young male chimpanzee, a tub of crisco, and an electric harmonica are going to be made public.

i believe that every person has a right to own guns. becuase if the goverment outlaws guns then the only people with guns are the criminals who get them on the black market.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

if people have thier guns taken away then the only peole without guns are the people involved in the black market! so what do you do if someone breaks into your home with a gun? call the cops and hope they get there? i think not!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Haha, see rational self interest! We don't need guns to feel threatened. I'm much more scared by your blackmail than i ever would be by a gun because I'd have to live with the consequences. Ban guns outright!

you can imtimedate people with much more then just guns such as knives blackmail and many more many people dont use guns so why should anyone else be differentto the minority that do.

A unilateral banning of guns is obviously not the answer, particularly if that ban were to include the police (and whether or not it does is not an issue of fact, so don't treat it as such-- it's an issue of semantics).

Going way, way back: Global Market, your numbers for people killed by governments are greatly, greatly skewed. The first thing I noticed is that you include the Great Leap Forward, citing it as a deliberate attempt to kill civilians. Everything I've ever read about the Great Leap Forward indicates that it was a genuine attempt at economic revitalization, but the Chinese government was ill-informed enough to attempt it in such a way that it caused a huge famine and killed a lot of people. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g/greatl1ea.asp)

Beyond that, I can't help but notice that you include wars. This seemed reasonable at first, but as I thought about it, I realized how out-of-synch with the rest of your argument that is. Wars are indeed the result of government action, but you'll notice that they almost always involve a fair degree of civilian support. People don't like to mention it, but a lot of Germans really liked Hitler before his greatest evils became known. An elderly Austrian woman I know was asked how it felt when Hitler took over Austria in the "Anschluss" of 1938. "Took over?" she said. "Honey, we let him in. People loved him." Would guns have prevented this, or the war that followed? (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/anschlus.asp - Note the phrase, "to popular approval.")

Moving on... "When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns." This is an equivocation, a logical fallacy; the word "outlaw" is being used in two different ways in one sentence. If guns are outlawed, naturally those who have guns will be outlaws. Still, there's a germ of truth here, and it's partly because of this that I don't advocate full diasarmament.

I don't remember who said this (Formicro?), but I must say that I love the saying, "Democracy is a fox and two chickens deciding what's for dinner." I don't like where you go with it, but it's absolutely true of unregulated democracy. This is why I'm a social democrat and not a libertarian.

NOTE: If you wish to discuss the merits and flaws of libertarianism at length, please do so in another forum. I'll be there.

Whoever said that the Patriot Act is how dictatorships start: EXACTLY. Actually, I keep thinking of Nazi Germany in all this. NOT TO EQUATE HITLER AND BUSH! That would be stupid. But using a democratic system to destroy itself is how dictators like Hitler too often get started.

As an aside, I think that rather than guns, the way to defend ourselves against our government is activism. Be an involved, concerned citizen with a voice in local, state, and national politics, and it's that much less likely that you'll need to overthrow the government. Unless something radically changes the way this country's run, elections will satisfy most people's definition of liberty. If you object to police and taxes, I can't help you.

As another aside, let me make the point that guns do not cause violence. People have been killing each other by whatever means available for as long as we've existed. Animals have been killing each other for hundreds of millions of years. Banning guns will not stop violence. But guns make violence quicker, easier, and more deadly than ever before. I don't feel safe knowing that any person on the street might have a gun, and I wouldn't feel much safer even if I had one-- nor, on the other hand, would I feel safe if guns were outlawed and everyone on the street had a knife or sword. Violence, robbery, murder, and weapons are staples of human existence. They've been with us since the beginning, and for them to leave us would require a radical shift in human psychology-- not just banning guns.

To return to my main point a little, we can talk about defending against criminals, and we can talk about defending against a degenerate government, but let's not forget hunting in all this. Hunting for sport disgusts me (just a personal thing... let it not be contrued as an objective judgement), but hunting in general is the only way to check the populations of animals whose natural predators we've basically killed off, and hunting for food is the only really environmentally-friendly way of getting meat (which, as an environmentally-minded omnivore, I'm quite keen on). Hunting is necessary, and a bow is a tough weapon to do it with. But you don't use handguns or assault rifles to hunt deer! And yes, before I get corrected, I know that in some states there's a handgun season for deer. I think that's silly. At any rate, this actually lets us separate the hunting issue rather neatly from defense of self and liberties, since different weapons are used.

And that brings us to: The Second Amendment. Certainly, it's in there, and I hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights very dear, but I submit:

1. It says absolutely nothing about defense from criminals. According to the Second Amendment, although guns should be available to the general populace, the purpose in doing so is to ensure the honesty of the government, not combat crime.

2. It is outmoded. When this document was written, it was both practical and necessary for nearly every home to contain a gun; now, it is neither. Further more, on the subject of defense from ones government: the government and its weapons are too large and too powerful for any civilian force, regardless of its size or armament (within reason... I did once get an anti-gun-control guy to argue that tactical nukes should be a legal form of self defense!) to overthrow said government. Sure, if every civilian rose up against the government, they'd be hosed, but that's true whether we have guns or not. 200 million people with pitchforks are still pretty hard to say no to. However, nowhere close to the entire population would ever rise up. The vast majority of people are unwaveringly pacifistic, blindly patriotic, hopelessly self-interested, unashamedly apathetic, or simply frightened enough that they would endure almost any tyranny rather than take arms against their government. This leaves us with a small group or people, either with or without weapons, ranging up to... fully automatic assault rifles? Land mines and flamethrowers? Tactical (non-nuclear) missile launchers? Doesn't matter. That group of people might outnumber our military personnel, but probably not by enough. Governments are too big, and wishing they weren't is just that-- wishful thinking. In order to succeed, a civilian uprising would have to have military support-- and if it had military support, wouldn't it have guns anyway?

Really, the only true heirs of the Second Amendment active in America today, besides the militias of the Central North, are the inner-city gangsters we middle class types have read about. They're using their guns to combat the tyranny of police and government over their activities. Ah, but they're no well-regulated militia, you say? Read on...

3. It's not reflected in the current situation in America. Gun-owners in America may be preserving their right to bear arms, but they are by no stretch of the imagination a well-regulated militia. Sure, some of them are, but lack of gun control itself does not ensure what the Second Amendment calls for: Regulation! And don't tell me that the NRA (the National RIFLE Association... where o where do handguns and automatics enter into this?) will serve as that well-regulated militia. Although I support its long-standing attempts to teach gun safety and intelligent gun ownership, I would argue that it's neither local nor regulated enough to fulfill the criteria.

So given this pile of information I've spewed forth, what's the solution? The way I see it, there are a few courses, at least for America.

1. We can let everyone have guns, without in-depth background checks or much licensing, leaving gun safety training to voluntary private organizations. Oh, wait, that's pretty much what we have now. Next.

2. We can ban all guns, for everyone. And we can ban alcohol, and drugs, and crime, and unhappiness, and buy everyone a kitten! Next, please.

3. We can stay true to the nature of the Second Amendment and establish local militias that are responsible, well-regulated, and mandatory for legal gun ownership. These militias will be treated as civilians in all ways, so they have no extra-legal rights, and they must answer to the government (assuming it has not become tyrranical) for any questionable actions. This seems risky to me, and it still won't help you when smart bombs come a-knocking-- nothing will. Until military spending is brought to some semblance of sanity, militias will not defend liberty.

4. We can ban all weapons except those in the hands of police and longarms used in hunting. Feel free to defend your home with a rifle, but don't bother trying concealed carry.

5. We can interpret "a well-regulated militia" simply to mean responsible gun owners, and take gun safety out of the NRA's hands and into the hands of a licensing system. As some people have hinted, this should mirror the one used for cars, involving detailed licensing and record-keeping, suspensions and revocations for misuse, and a full training program. Alternately, we could give up on the Second Amendment as a justification for gun ownership for the reasons listed above and insitute this system out of sheer, unbridled common sense.

Personally, I'd advocate a mixture of 4 and 5. But that's only partly the point I'm trying to make here. The other point of this post: Gun control is a complicated issue, and simple arguments aren't good enough. As far as I'm concerned, there are a few good arguments and a whole hell of a lot of bad ones going in either direction. I hope we all respect this issue and each other enough to make good ones.

P.S. Does anyone have statistics of gun violence, accidents, etc. for hunting arms vs. "self defense" weapons (handguns, automatics, etc.)? I've never heard of any, and I think it's an important distinction to make.

People don't like to mention it, but a lot of Germans really liked Hitler before his greatest evils became known. An elderly Austrian woman I know was asked how it felt when Hitler took over Austria in the "Anschluss" of 1938. "Took over?" she said. "Honey, we let him in. People loved him." Would guns have prevented this, or the war that followed?
The Anschluss was not a war; there was no fighting, and no one expected it to lead to war. On the other hand, Hitler's invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland were extremely unpopular (too many Germans remembered the Great War). Contemporary sources are unanimous in their description of the general mood of despondency in Germany when Hitler siezed Czechoslovakia, which did not change until Poland had collapsed (without being aided by France and Britain).
There was armed resistance to Hitler in the beginning - from the Communists, and the rest of the population was not at all displeased to see them disarmed. And even though the Germans didn't want to go to war, they certainly wouldn't have risen in armed rebellion to prevent it.

As an aside, I think that rather than guns, the way to defend ourselves against our government is activism.
Activism is of limited utility - and none whatever should the government simply choose not to allow it. When that midnight knock on the door comes, what good will writing a letter to your Congressman do? Of course, having a gun won't save you either, but you might take a few of them with you. Most people wouldn't have the guts, but if that possibility is there every time, it would at least make police operations more difficult.

But guns make violence quicker, easier, and more deadly than ever before.
The fact that it's quicker and physically less demanding to kill someone hasn't led to any increase in crime; rather, it has gradually decreased as weapons have been improved. Murder rates in medieval cities were ten times those of the modern USA.

And that brings us to: The Second Amendment. Certainly, it's in there, and I hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights very dear, [whatever...] but I submit:

1. It says absolutely nothing about defense from criminals. According to the Second Amendment, although guns should be available to the general populace, the purpose in doing so is to ensure the honesty of the government, not combat crime.
The author of the Amendment probably never anticipated a future in which the right of self-defense would be called into question. It is our opinion that the right of self-defense, and the use of arms therefor, as a well-established common law right, is adequately protected by the Ninth Amendment.

2. It is outmoded. When this document was written, it was both practical and necessary for nearly every home to contain a gun; now, it is neither.
It may not be necessary, but it's certainly not impractical.

Further more, on the subject of defense from ones government: the government and its weapons are too large and too powerful for any civilian force.... Sure, if every civilian rose up against the government, they'd be hosed.... However, nowhere close to the entire population would ever rise up.
Certainly nowhere near the whole population would ever fight; however, if the majority of the population sympathized with a rebellion, and that rebellion were armed and determined, it would eventually succeed. The powerful weapons available to governments are of limited utility against partisans, as demonstrated in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

...That group of people might outnumber our military personnel, but probably not by enough.
That depends, of course, on how the soldiers feel about killing them, and how the non-combatants react to the killing of fellow citizens. Sometimes (as in Lithuania in 1990) the ability to confront the government with armed force is sufficient, because militaries are only as useful as they are obedient.

Really, the only true heirs of the Second Amendment active in America today, besides the militias of the Central North, are the inner-city gangsters we middle class types have read about.
Hardly. The true heirs of the Second Amendment are the tens of millions of Americans who take responsibility for the defense of their homes, families, and persons.

So... what's the solution?....

1. We can let everyone have guns, without in-depth background checks or much licensing, leaving gun safety training to voluntary private organizations. Oh, wait, that's pretty much what we have now. Next.
Actually, background checks are mandatory, and tens of thousands of gun purchases are erroneously failed each year. Handgun registration is universal or nearly so, and all but one of the states that permit carry require a license. Many of these states make licenses difficult or impossible to obtain. Privately sponsored gun safety training has been very effective, and could only get worse if the government took it over.
All the background checks and licensing requirements have done nothing at all to reduce the access of criminals to guns. In the UK, a complete ban on firearms hasn't even accomplished that. What the US needs is less restrictions on gun ownership and carry, so that more people will have the ability to protect themselves.