NationStates Jolt Archive

A complete, multi-article proposal for said subject will go up here as soon as it is finished. It takes some time as it draws from real legislature concerning said proposal. So don't start discussing it before you've seen it...

Then why start this topic now?

Because you started the topic before you had a proposal I'm forced to reveal my hand.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/mossproposal.jpg

I for one think the idea of Bear Arms to be frightening and will not support this.

Thing is the right to bear arms has already been put up in the proposal list, i dont see it here though so when will the starter of this thread post it here?

I for one think the idea of Bear Arms to be frightening and will not support this.

Now what exactly frightens you exactly? It couldn't possibly the fact that people are protecting themselves could it? I mean to keep guns out of criminals hands is one thing. But there is nothing wrong with wishing to protect your family.

I really hate this american rhetoric that if everyone had a gun then things would be safer, no they would not, america is a lot less safe than gunless(almost) britain

I really hate this american rhetoric that if everyone had a gun then things would be safer, no they would not, america is a lot less safe than gunless(almost) britain

Considering the reams of material which state you're wrong, might we see your evidence?

Considering the reams of material which state you're wrong, might we see your evidence?

To quote the great Winston Churchill

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

To quote the great Winston Churchill

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

So, ya ain't got nuttin. Figured as much. :p

I could do so, if i was bothered to and had the time to. But an exam calls and the next four hours i will be concentrating on the exciting topic :confused: of accounting :rolleyes:

I could do so, if i was bothered to and had the time to. But an exam calls and the next fours i will be concentrating on the exciting topic :confused: of accounting :rolleyes:

OOC: Enjoy!

http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg
not a UN issue.... next

Considering the reams of material which state you're wrong, might we see your evidence?
OOC: Now, I hope you're not making the erroneous point that Britain would do well to loosen its gun laws...

IC: Gun laws are a matter for nations to determine for themselves, not the UN. Hell, we barely allow the national government to legislate on the issue.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Now what exactly frightens you exactly? It couldn't possibly the fact that people are protecting themselves could it? I mean to keep guns out of criminals hands is one thing. But there is nothing wrong with wishing to protect your family.

Is there a trophy for people who stunningly miss the joke?

I'd support any proposal which protected the right for bare arms, or maybe even to arm bears, but not to bear arms.

Old joke

Considering the reams of material which state you're wrong, might we see your evidence?

OOC: I thought we weren't meant to reference real life issues? Otherwise there is plenty of evidence that Wegason could cite proving his/her case - such as looking at the number of gun-related deaths in the US compared to any countries (such as the UK) with gun control laws, or that a household gun is more likely to injure a family member than an intruder. This is one of those subjects on which I cannot comprehend the position of some of our trans-atlantic cousins. Honestly - I really don't understand any of the pro-gun arguments. I don't want to seem offensive, but its a position that is completely outside my frame of reference. It is something I wouldn't mind being put forward as a proposal though, I'd quite like to debate on the subject and maybe come a little closer to understanding why people would actually want a gun.

Its fun to learn

:D

OOC: I thought we weren't meant to reference real life issues?
You can't reference RL issues in the proposal body, but you certainly can in the discussion topis, as long as you keep pointing back to the worlds of NS. There haven't been a lot of statistical studies of political behavior within NS natoins (read:none), so sometimes you just have to look outwards.

I'd support any proposal which protected the right for bare arms, or maybe even to arm bears, but not to bear arms.

Old joke

If you arm those friggin bears, we shall have to take drastic measures... bad enough they tear open cars to get at the chewy center...

OOC: I thought we weren't meant to reference real life issues? Otherwise there is plenty of evidence that Wegason could cite proving his/her case - such as looking at the number of gun-related deaths in the US compared to any countries (such as the UK) with gun control laws, or that a household gun is more likely to injure a family member than an intruder. This is one of those subjects on which I cannot comprehend the position of some of our trans-atlantic cousins. Honestly - I really don't understand any of the pro-gun arguments. I don't want to seem offensive, but its a position that is completely outside my frame of reference. It is something I wouldn't mind being put forward as a proposal though, I'd quite like to debate on the subject and maybe come a little closer to understanding why people would actually want a gun.

Its fun to learn

:D

OOC:
Foremost, look at the incidence rate of assault, rape, robbery, and other violent crimes on a per capita basis. Ireland alone argues for and against an armed populace :D

Now, let us look into a nation with a "mixed" gun availability - America. Those states with "liberal" (stop gagging) concealed carry laws have a much lower rate per capita of all violent crime. Those states with a more strict view on such laws, have a much higher rate. Compare Texas (loose gun laws) against Washington DC (very strict) on a per capita basis, and you will see the arguement for very clearly.

On another point of view - let us say I am the quintessential 95 pound weakling. I enter a bar, and some beligerent wishes to start a brawl. Am I likely to get pounded into the floor? Certainly.

Move this to a "concealed carry" state, and it becomes FAR less likely. So do muggings - it's easy to overpower a wimpish human who has nothing but their hands to defend themselves. Add a .32 automatic to the mix and things turn around significantly. Or a 9mm Glock, or a .45 Browning.

Or we could go to the simplest arguement of all. Let us say you are at home, and someone breaks in. What do you do? You call the police - the people with guns - to take care of the problem. If you are not armed, not prepared, then you have that wait for someone to come and protect you.

On the other hand, I'm armed. Well armed, and I shoot damn well. It's posted on my lawn - "Don't worry about the dog, owner shoots first" - and the world has a strong belief I am perfectly willing to take a 12 gauge to an intruder. If you're a robber, are you likely to make the attempt, when there's a marshmallow a few doors down, not armed and advertising the fact?

OOC:
Foremost, look at the incidence rate of assault, rape, robbery, and other violent crimes on a per capita basis. Ireland alone argues for and against an armed populace :D

OOC: I'm not even going to touch that one. As an Englishman, discussing Ireland is a sure fire way to offend plenty of people.

On another point of view - let us say I am the quintessential 95 pound weakling. I enter a bar, and some beligerent wishes to start a brawl. Am I likely to get pounded into the floor? Certainly.

Move this to a "concealed carry" state, and it becomes FAR less likely. So do muggings - it's easy to overpower a wimpish human who has nothing but their hands to defend themselves. Add a .32 automatic to the mix and things turn around significantly. Or a 9mm Glock, or a .45 Browning.

OOC: But your option to defend yourself with a gun here is to shoot the mugger. Shoot them. With a gun. I think this is one of the biggest problems I have in understanding the arguments - I'd just give them my wallet/phone or whatever they wanted off me rather than shoot them, or stab them or attempt to smash their head in with a plank or whatever. I usually feel that I'm quite open-minded and able to understand both sides of an argument, but this one is a massive hurdle. I mean...shooting someone? That seems pretty final. They could die. I apologise for my lack of ability to discourse well on this particular point, I tried, but...shooting someone? Over a crappy wallet with a couple of credit cards in and maybe 40 quid? They can have my damn wallet.

Now, I know that point doesn't invalidate your argument, you're not suggesting that it be mandatory for all citizens to own and carry a gun, so I wouldn't have to be put in that situation but its still an important thing to think about. Once you've shot somebody then its pretty hard to undo it. Is it worth all that just for money? I understand that the criminal deserves to be punished for breaking the law, but surely not by shooting them.

Or we could go to the simplest arguement of all. Let us say you are at home, and someone breaks in. What do you do? You call the police - the people with guns - to take care of the problem. If you are not armed, not prepared, then you have that wait for someone to come and protect you.

OOC: If I called the police where I live, they wouldn't come with guns. The only time I've ever even seen a policeman with a gun was those dudes in the body armour that get out the back of a van, and that's only been the once. Seriously. Its only fairly recently that the police have started carrying pepper spray and whilst there are armed police officers, they aren't the ones who'd come round to my house if I said I had an intruder.

Still, this is a good point you make, even though the rozzers aren't armed, you call them because they are better equipped to deal with the situation and I concede that it is important that people have the ability to defend themselves in their home, fair enough. But with guns? What about pepper spray, or something non-lethal like that? Surely that would make more sense - you would be able to defend yourself and wouldn't run the dual risk of a) killing an intruder or b) accidentally killing or wounding a family member. OK, maybe it doesn't quite have the range of a gun, but if they're in your house already then what does range matter? Unless of course, you live in massive house and you come across them on the far side of the ballroom. But even then, wouldn't rubber bullets or those bean-bag gun things be a far better option?

On the other hand, I'm armed. Well armed, and I shoot damn well. It's posted on my lawn - "Don't worry about the dog, owner shoots first" - and the world has a strong belief I am perfectly willing to take a 12 gauge to an intruder. If you're a robber, are you likely to make the attempt, when there's a marshmallow a few doors down, not armed and advertising the fact?

Whilst you would quite probably be a responsible gun-owner (just because I'm against guns, it doesn't mean I assume every gun owner is a foaming at the mouth barbarian) the laws that would enable you to bear arms also mean that anybody could get them, and would mean that its easier for a potential mugger/robber to access these weapons. So any confrontation with such a person turns into the Gunfight at the OK Corral. I know several people who don't have a criminal record but shudder at the thought that they would be able to purchase and carry a firearm were it legal for citizens to bear arms.
Other than the aforementioned police incident, and the time I accidentally strayed into a barracks, I've never seen a gun before. I've never heard of anyone I know, or a friend of a friend, or a disreputable tale tell of someone having managed to get hold of a gun. The only time I ever read about armed robberies in the paper, they've used shotguns, which are possible to own legally here.

This is one of the big arguments - by removing legal access to guns it is far harder for criminals to access them. I know the argument is often put forward that "If they really want a gun, then they'll be able to get one anyway" but that just doesn't hold water. If it were the case, then there would be far fewer stabbings in this country and far more shootings. The vast majority of illegal gun sales stem from person to person sales, originating with someone who does have the legal right to purchase firearms.

The thing is, if I were a robber, I'd wait till both you and the "Marshmallow" were out, and then rob both your houses. For all I know, this "Marshmallow" (quotes only because I'm not sure what it means and I'm doing my best to guess from context. It means non-gun owning liberal, right?) is a martial artist type, and knows how to snap my bones in several inventive and painful ways.

Additionally, since most burglaries occur either a) when the property is unoccupied or b) when the occupants are asleep, what use does having a gun do you? Especially in case "b", the purpose of a burglary is to come in and take your stuff, so what's to prevent the burglar from taking your gun whilst you're in the Land of Nod and then shooting you with it?

Though I'm loathe to use them, I have some statistics taken from The Observer and The Guardian (two UK broadsheets) talking about number of gun deaths. Now, I agree with Wiston Churchill on this one and you can use statistics to prove anything, but even so, they make interesting reading.

From the Guardian:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the US in 2000."

From the Observer:
"417 was the total number of people killed with guns in the UK 2000/01."

Now, given that the US population is 5 times that of the UK (there are about 300 million of you aren't there? Please correct me if I'm wrong.) why is the number of firearm deaths about 60 times higher? That's not a small difference, that's pretty significant. Maths isn't my greatest strength though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the figures here, but even so...

I actually found out some other interesting facts though - something that the "anti-gun" proponents usually omit from their arguments - but I'm going to put it up here for completeness sake and in the interests of fairness. Like I said, it's fun to learn.

"[In reference to the total number of US firearm deaths] Of that figure, 16,586 (58%) were suicides, 11,071 (39%) were homicides (including 270 deaths from police action), and 1,006 (4%) were due to accidents or undetermined causes.""

I never realised that so many of these fatalities were suicides, so my earlier statement that the number of firearm deaths being 60 times higher than in the UK, its actually more like (for the purposes of my argument) only around 30 times higher.

Looking through what I've put down, what you've put down and what I've discovered today I can understand your argument (Success! I have learnt!)- it is to do with the right that a citizen has to defend themselves from criminals. And you know what, thinking about it, I agree.

But that still doesn't outweigh the argument of making it easier to access guns being a bad thing. There are a hell of a lot of people out there who I wouldn't wish to be able to legally purchase the gun (because of the type of person they are) and there are even more people who I wouldn't trust with a gun (even if I was stood directly behind them) and the ability to use it safely.

I hope I've come across well here; it's late and I'm tired and I've had a couple of beers so I'm not too sure if this reads as genuine or as offensive, but please believe that my intention was to continue a cool-headed debate.



To conclude: By all means, every citizen should have the right to bear chloroform, or pepper spray, or a powerful water cannon, but a gun is just too...final. Bang. You're Dead.

Before I reply - add to that "firearm death" rate, the number of assaults, armed assaults, and general violent crime.

Britain doesn't have many guns on it - as such, gun crime will be lower (duh). However, we're talking about violent crime as a whole. Guns are a deterrent to violence in any form because they level the playing field - my 95 pound weakling can pull a trigger just as easily as Conan the Barbarian can. Or Guido the Killer Pimp.


OOC: But your option to defend yourself with a gun here is to shoot the mugger. Shoot them. With a gun. I think this is one of the biggest problems I have in understanding the arguments - I'd just give them my wallet/phone or whatever they wanted off me rather than shoot them, or stab them or attempt to smash their head in with a plank or whatever. I usually feel that I'm quite open-minded and able to understand both sides of an argument, but this one is a massive hurdle. I mean...shooting someone? That seems pretty final. They could die. I apologise for my lack of ability to discourse well on this particular point, I tried, but...shooting someone? Over a crappy wallet with a couple of credit cards in and maybe 40 quid? They can have my damn wallet.

Great! Only now a days, they kill you as well. No witness, no chance of getting caught. So you're dead. Feel better about things?

Me? I have a dead body at my feet, spend an hour with the police, and I'm still fine and dandy.

Drawing at all is often enough to have the other guy go "well, crap on that idea". Often, just the idea "he might be going for a gun" will do it.


Still, this is a good point you make, even though the rozzers aren't armed, you call them because they are better equipped to deal with the situation and I concede that it is important that people have the ability to defend themselves in their home, fair enough. But with guns? What about pepper spray, or something non-lethal like that? Surely that would make more sense - you would be able to defend yourself and wouldn't run the dual risk of a) killing an intruder or b) accidentally killing or wounding a family member. OK, maybe it doesn't quite have the range of a gun, but if they're in your house already then what does range matter? Unless of course, you live in massive house and you come across them on the far side of the ballroom. But even then, wouldn't rubber bullets or those bean-bag gun things be a far better option?


Before you get hyped about pepper spray, you should know - it's not that hard to form an immunity to it. And you have to get real close, and hit them in the face.

My 12 gauge.... Loaded with birdshot, it's not penetrating the walls of this house - but it will tear a hole in the invader. If I load double-aught buckshot or a slug? Sonofabitch is dead, there's a hole in the car outside.

You have the idea "wounding them is better". No. Too many cases of criminals suing the people who wounded them for "loss of mobility" or other such stupidity - yes, it's true. Dead people don't sue. And in Texas, it's legal to kill an invader. So we do - and have less invaders.



Whilst you would quite probably be a responsible gun-owner (just because I'm against guns, it doesn't mean I assume every gun owner is a foaming at the mouth barbarian) the laws that would enable you to bear arms also mean that anybody could get them, and would mean that its easier for a potential mugger/robber to access these weapons. So any confrontation with such a person turns into the Gunfight at the OK Corral. I know several people who don't have a criminal record but shudder at the thought that they would be able to purchase and carry a firearm were it legal for citizens to bear arms.
Other than the aforementioned police incident, and the time I accidentally strayed into a barracks, I've never seen a gun before. I've never heard of anyone I know, or a friend of a friend, or a disreputable tale tell of someone having managed to get hold of a gun. The only time I ever read about armed robberies in the paper, they've used shotguns, which are possible to own legally here.

Again, you're Britain, and your invaders used swords. We could look at Ireland... :D



This is one of the big arguments - by removing legal access to guns it is far harder for criminals to access them. I know the argument is often put forward that "If they really want a gun, then they'll be able to get one anyway" but that just doesn't hold water. If it were the case, then there would be far fewer stabbings in this country and far more shootings. The vast majority of illegal gun sales stem from person to person sales, originating with someone who does have the legal right to purchase firearms.

Well, no they don't. Most illegal weapons here are military grade or came over the border with Mexico, or were stolen.

It does not make it significantly harder for criminals to access them, it makes it significantly harder for the general population to get them. BIG difference. And again, we go back to "so, what is your violent crime rate?"



The thing is, if I were a robber, I'd wait till both you and the "Marshmallow" were out, and then rob both your houses. For all I know, this "Marshmallow" (quotes only because I'm not sure what it means and I'm doing my best to guess from context. It means non-gun owning liberal, right?) is a martial artist type, and knows how to snap my bones in several inventive and painful ways.

Well, my dogs are going to have fun with you - and you'd better pray that empty slot doesn't mean I took the car and my wife is home, because she'll shoot your ass too.

You don't know when I'm coming back - and if I come back and you're there, you're ventilated and the coroner is going to have you on a slab. If marshmallow comes back, you can beat them to death and keep going. Difference.



Additionally, since most burglaries occur either a) when the property is unoccupied or b) when the occupants are asleep, what use does having a gun do you? Especially in case "b", the purpose of a burglary is to come in and take your stuff, so what's to prevent the burglar from taking your gun whilst you're in the Land of Nod and then shooting you with it?

Let's see... my dog... me... the gun lock... the gun case... burglar alarm...

If I'm in my house, and I know my wife is in bed - or in the safe room - and something moves, it's dead. Period. I'm not playing patsy games here - if you're in my house and you don't belong here, you're meat because you are a clear and present threat to me and mine - and in the game of life, I count more then you.

And FYI, the "new method" of burglary is to break in whenever. Doesn't matter if youre home or not. Welcome to America - gimme your wallet.

Guns and suicide - guns are faster, cleaner, less forgiving. That's why they're used. A serious suicide would find a way in any case. And the accidents are because people aren't careful - well, that's people. These are the same people who impale themselves on their own knives and suffocate themselves with plastic and duct tape.

Now what exactly frightens you exactly? It couldn't possibly the fact that people are protecting themselves could it? I mean to keep guns out of criminals hands is one thing. But there is nothing wrong with wishing to protect your family.

I really am sick and tired of right-wingers using this argument. It's misleading. You are more likely to kill a friend or family member than to actually kill a burgular. Maybe if you researched this topic, you'd find that guns do more harm than good. What's wrong with just certain people who need them (policemen, militiamen, etc.) having guns? Why does everyone need one? It's insanity. If I'm not mistaken, there was a proposal in Alabama (or maybe it was national) that limited it to a gun a month. But that was too big a threat to your so-called "freedoms" guaranteed in the Constitution. (My apologies if you're not American or if someone else said that.)

One more time! When you call the police - the people with guns - to come help you, wouldn't it be a little easier and faster if you had the gun in the first place?

I've never found that guns do more harm then good. I've heard about idiots hurting themselves, but so be it.

One more time! When you call the police - the people with guns - to come help you, wouldn't it be a little easier and faster if you had the gun in the first place?

I've never found that guns do more harm then good. I've heard about idiots hurting themselves, but so be it.

Idiots hurting themselves? What an awful idea! How dare they so conveniently remove themselves from the gene pool. ;)

Personally I'm more concerned about idiots hurting other people than idiots hurting themselves. :)

Anything that makes for good news that amuses me.

OOC: ok ok ok i'll say it...

guns don't kill people... people kill people

The first rule of gun saftey is know what your target is. One of my dad's friends shot his wife through his bedroom door. Why? Because he didn't SEE what/who he was shooting. There are precausions responcible people take to ensure gun safety.

Criminals inherently do not obey the law, so why would they obey a gun law? Many criminals (in the US) already cannot legally own guns, yet they do it anyways.

Why do Americans value their guns? Because it's been a big part of their culture from the get go. The original intent is that people have the right to have weapons because if the government ever got out of line it could be overthrown. If the government is the only one with guns, then it tends to be a one sided fight - kinda like if criminals are the only ones with them ;)

:mp5:

IC: The People of the Free Lands of Draconomia think that it is the place of each government to decide wether or not its people have the right to have guns. We would not support forcing all nations to allow it any more than we would support forcing all nations to not allow it.

OOC: ok ok ok i'll say it...

guns don't kill people... people kill people
No you've got it wrong. It's, Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do.:D

OOC: ok ok ok i'll say it...

guns don't kill people... people kill people

Although the gun does help in this, simply hurling bullets at people has less of an effect... :D

Britain doesn't have many guns on it - as such, gun crime will be lower (duh). However, we're talking about violent crime as a whole. Guns are a deterrent to violence in any form because they level the playing field - my 95 pound weakling can pull a trigger just as easily as Conan the Barbarian can. Or Guido the Killer Pimp.

True, but if you look at the violent crime figures in the UK (which are decreasing if you believe Blair and Clarke.) the vast majority of these are made up of alcohol related incidents - chucking out time at the pub, and these are pretty easy to avoid if you have an ounce of common sense. I've been beaten up a couple of times, and whilst it isn't nice, I'm glad that these people don't carry firearms and can't easily access firearms or things would be a hell of a lot worse. I see what you're saying though, and that it acts a deterrent but if the criminals also have a gun then it balances out again - OK, the 8 stone weakling has a gun, but so does Guido the Killer Pimp, and he's probably had more practice at using it to kill people. If I was called Guido the Killer Pimp I wouldn't be scared of some nobody just because he has a gun. I'd probably have several guns myself, and they'd be better guns. And I'd shoot him before he even knew I was there. And then loot the body. And probably laugh and say to my Killer Pimp colleagues something along the lines of "Idiot carries a gun? What use is that if I want to kill him, I go looking for trouble, and he doesn't, so soon as I see him - BANG!" You said this yourself, nowadays they're probably going to do it anyway, so why not do it first?

Great! Only now a days, they kill you as well. No witness, no chance of getting caught. So you're dead. Feel better about things?

Believe it or not, yes. I'd rather be killed than kill someone else. I get seriously freaked out if I accidentally step on a beetle or something, and I'm sure that if I was responsible for the death of a person then I'd end up being so plagued with guilt that I'd either a) kill myself or b) get instituionalised.


You have the idea "wounding them is better". No. Too many cases of criminals suing the people who wounded them for "loss of mobility" or other such stupidity - yes, it's true. Dead people don't sue. And in Texas, it's legal to kill an invader. So we do - and have less invaders

This is why I suggest things that don't cause significant amounts of damage. I didn't say it would be a good idea to go after them with a cricket bat or golf club, just do enough to hold them up till the police arrive. Suing people of loss of mobility? Really? Unbelievable...*shakes head in amazement* that's not about guns though, that's a problem with the judiciary.

Again, you're Britain, and your invaders used swords. We could look at Ireland...:D

Stop talking about Ireland! :D First of all, I don't actually know that much about UK domestic history (and yes, it IS a domestic issue), I'm more interested in our involvement of foreign affairs. Second of all, STOP TALKING ABOUT IRELAND! :D

Well, no they don't. Most illegal weapons here are military grade or came over the border with Mexico, or were stolen.

It does not make it significantly harder for criminals to access them, it makes it significantly harder for the general population to get them. BIG difference. And again, we go back to "so, what is your violent crime rate?"

Only 60% of guns owned in the US require a federal background check, so 40% of guns could be owned by anybody. And again, there's a cultural difference here, the vast majority of guns in the UK have been obtained either through person to person sales or stolen from someone who has had the legal right to buy the gun. Look at Moss Side in the 80s and 90s. If they didn't have a gun, then no-one could steal it. Although, to be fair, illegal gun ownership with smuggled weapons from the EU is on the rise, especially in Birmingham and London.

violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than the US

This is from an advocacy group and you're right, it IS higher. However, lets put the WHOLE quote in:

With the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than the US

Murder's pretty bad. There's more though...

For the year 2003, Canada had 8,530 crimes per 100,000 (vs. 4,267 in the US). Of these, Canada had 958 violent crimes (vs. 523 in the US), and 4,275 property crimes (vs. 3,744 in the US).

Gun ownership is legal in Canada too, right? I mean, they're in danger of being attacked by wolves and bears and beavers (if they can do that to trees, imagine what they could do to pliable flesh and brittle bone...) so I guess that they feel this is a good reason to have them (I disagree, I still think that the bad points about owning guns outweigh the good) but this shows that gun ownership doesn't deter violent crime.

Feel free to discount this though, like I said, I hate statistics and I don't trust them, even though these back up my argument. It still makes interesting reading though.

Let's see... my dog... me... the gun lock... the gun case... burglar alarm..

If your gun is locked away in the case then its not exactly easy for you to get it, compared to the intruder, who's probably got his tucked in his pants. Plus, your dogs would be a terrifying deterrent were it not for the fact that, much as I love dogs, they don't have bullet-resistant fur, so Mr Burglar's just going to shoot them.

And FYI, the "new method" of burglary is to break in whenever. Doesn't matter if youre home or not. Welcome to America - gimme your wallet.

Didn't know that, but its a cultural difference I guess. Over here, its still as I said in the previous post.

And the accidents are because people aren't careful - well, that's people. These are the same people who impale themselves on their own knives and suffocate themselves with plastic and duct tape.

An accident with a gun is a lot more dangerous than with a knife though. I've cut myself plenty of times with kitchen knives and what have you (not for fun, by accident :D ) and I'm alright. True, it looks like I have the hands of a sixty year old, but they still work. If I'd accidentally shot myself with a gun, then the injury's going to be a lot more severe.

At least I understand the arguments now, previously when I've asked people about this they've tended to call me a "Freedom Hater!" and "hope I get killed by a criminal to teach me a lesson." and I appreciate the fact that you haven't done that, and have taken the time to coherently explain things to me.

Still though, I'm against the idea of universal gun ownership - they're just far too dangerous, and I don't think people should have the right to kill someone in self-defence. Nobody should ever be able to kill someone else. Ever. What might be better would be if more funding was put into non-lethal weapons that would be legal for citizens to own - sonics, aromas or whatever.

John

IC: The government of Tazikhstan would oppose this ammendment, as it is a situation where it should be left to sovereign governments. The Tazikh Government would do all it could to prevent this Resolution from passing, but would likewise oppose any bill outlawing the right to bear arms, although we would strongly recommend that all nations with such laws carefully analyse their crime rate and those of other nations where citizens cannot own weapons. Human life is far too precious to waste.

Ambassador Imran Zaric of The Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan

Look, none of your arguments matter compared to the following. The right to bear arms is necessary for one reason and one reason only:

If owning guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would own guns. If the bad guys have guns, I should be able to have them, too.

No, Tazikhstan, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to shoot somebody. You're just a much more sympathetic person than I am.

That said, the UN needs to keep its hands off international right to bear arms laws, even if they do make sense to heartless stay-off-my-lawn freaks like Vastiva and myself.

When somebody has an actual proposal to post, start a new thread. This one seems to have turned into a General discussion. Move it there if you want to argue the philosophy of guns, and bring it back here when there is actual UN related content to discuss.