Should people be allowed to have guns?

[Jolly Roger]

Cow - most of those deaths are illegal, criminals killing people, not accidental shootings....

if you outlaw guns, how will the problem be solved? It's already illegal to kill with guns, you think criminals will just turn in their guns?

With all the press IEDs are getting these days, perhaps it would be "safest" if the American public also stocked up on explosives as Master Bush suggested. While landmines would make mowing the lawn more difficult, their strategic placement on your property would be far more effective than a pistol in a cabinet when it comes to defending your home from trespassers, criminal or otherwise. In fact, you could eliminate entire gangs of criminals while lying on the couch drinking beer. Besides, the criminals aren't going to be handing in their explosives any time soon. It's best to be prepared.

[vtmarik]

With all the press IEDs are getting these days, perhaps it would be "safest" if the American public also stocked up on explosives as Master Bush suggested. While landmines would make mowing the lawn more difficult, their strategic placement on your property would be far more effective than a pistol in a cabinet when it comes to defending your home from trespassers, criminal or otherwise. In fact, you could eliminate entire gangs of criminals while lying on the couch drinking beer. Besides, the criminals aren't going to be handing in their explosives any time soon. It's best to be prepared.

Well, considering the 'war on crime' and international opinion regarding land mines, I'd rather own a gun then end up at The Hague on trial for war crimes.

[thephule77]

Sorry about all my misspellings and gramatical errors in my writing (honestly I never found either to be all that important).

As to the land mines theory, if you live in the city that is dumbest thing I've heard on this thread. The mail man walks through our yard every day (well except Sunday but thats besides the point). Land mines can't be set to only blow up on certain people, they don't read minds to figure out whos a tresspasser and whos not. what if a neibor kid accedently kicks his ball into your yard, do want little johny all over the side of your house?

[Benbo231]

i think the armed forces should have guns, the police should have guns, the liscensed hunters should have guns, but no one else. otherwise we will all die at the hands of criminals.

[Bozo]

if you mean ban guns, are you refering to things like b.b guns also? because if you wernt then someone could alter a b.b gun into a real gun with only some time and a few supplies

[OwlLawyer]

With all the press IEDs are getting these days, perhaps it would be "safest" if the American public also stocked up on explosives as Master Bush suggested. While landmines would make mowing the lawn more difficult, their strategic placement on your property would be far more effective than a pistol in a cabinet when it comes to defending your home from trespassers, criminal or otherwise. In fact, you could eliminate entire gangs of criminals while lying on the couch drinking beer. Besides, the criminals aren't going to be handing in their explosives any time soon. It's best to be prepared.

Thank you for using hyperbole to completely ignore all issues and refuse to deal with logic. Well played.

[heavycola]

What it boils down to, IMO, is the number of handgun deaths each year versus your right to shoot people in order to defend yourself and/or your property/family, and which you give more of a shit about. That's basically the issue. They do exist here - I live in east london and i have heard gunshots in this neighbourhood several times. But i know that they are a tiny factor here compared with the US. Some dude with a gun breaks in and wants to take my shit - he can have it. The UK is way behind the US in many areas of social policy, but handgun deaths isn't one of them.

No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now… in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now… the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I’m getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let’s go through those numbers again, because they’re a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I’m getting a stiffy… twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there’s no connection, and you’d be a fool and a Communist to make one. There’s no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That’s absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.

(it's a few more than 14 these days, but it's still relatively tiny)

[Joe McCarthy]

Liberals are sure fond of the expression that if a people sacrifices their security for liberty that they deserve neither, right up until the conversation turns to gun ownership. Then suddenly its all about saving lives, to hell with individual rights.

Its a persons right and responsibilty to protect themselves, and some believe a gun will help them do that. They are guaranteed the right to own one in our Constitution for that reason, and its understood and accepted, as it was at the time it was written, that the price for that is that murders can get ahold of guns as well. We accept it, because we wont give up our right to defend ourselves to save those victims. Thats just a value judgement and a difference between our cultures, may seem insane to you but to us its a simple risk/reward calculation. Likewise, it seems insane to me to accept an enviroment where only the criminals have guns, but thats me.

[OwlLawyer]

Heavycola, I understand what you are saying, but let's deal with the reality of the situation. In England, where handgun ownership has NEVER been a right, there are not thousands of guns on the streets, there just are not that many. In the U.S., there are. There are too many guns.

But if you make a law, making guns illegal, who benefits? Criminals who have illegally obtained guns, who have them already, and who just won't give them up. It's a situation of dealing with the culture and the reality of the situation.

Gun crimes are not committed by the law abiding citizen who has guns for hobby or personal protection, they are committed by those willing to break the law, and the fact that you make guns illegal will not stop them, it will just let them know that if they break into a house, they have much less of a chance of running into an armed home owner.

And look at the statistics beyond gun deaths. Look also at the number of home invasions per capita. You will find in the UK many more home invasions (meaning break ins when there are people home) than in the US. There's a reason for it.

[heavycola]

We accept it, because we wont give up our right to defend ourselves to save those victims. Thats just a value judgement and a difference between our cultures, may seem insane to you but to us its a simple risk/reward calculation. Likewise, it seems insane to me to accept an enviroment where only the criminals have guns, but thats me.

I agree, it IS a cultural difference. Americans and Brits speak the same language, wear the same clothes, laugh at the same sitcoms, play the same boardgames, and i think we expect to understand one another more than we probably should. Having (or not) a consititution, history, geography - we are two very different cultures. I wasn't trying to be judgmental, just putting forward a point of view. Guns i just don't get, but then i wasn't born in the US.

[Joe McCarthy]

I know, your post and mine are pretty much in agreement heavycola. Im just a slow typist and yours wasnt there when I went to make mine, I was speaking to spuzzel there actually.

[Jolly Roger]

With all the press IEDs are getting these days, perhaps it would be "safest" if the American public also stocked up on explosives as Master Bush suggested. While landmines would make mowing the lawn more difficult, their strategic placement on your property would be far more effective than a pistol in a cabinet when it comes to defending your home from trespassers, criminal or otherwise. In fact, you could eliminate entire gangs of criminals while lying on the couch drinking beer. Besides, the criminals aren't going to be handing in their explosives any time soon. It's best to be prepared.

Thank you for using hyperbole to completely ignore all issues and refuse to deal with logic. Well played.

You're welcome. I'm sorry - I didn't realize that logic was involved. Essentially, I just repeated your argument and applied it to more destructive weapons designed to kill indiscriminately but you seem to feel that there should be a line drawn somewhere. There are some who believe that the line should be drawn at gun ownership and then there are others who believe that it should be drawn somewhere else. You feel your position is sensible; those who disagree with you also believe their position is sensible. My position, as you pointed out, makes no sense whatsoever except to emphasize that the debate has more to do with perspective than logic and the position one takes has more to do with fear than rationality.

[OwlLawyer]

Jolly Roger,

You addressed none of my argument, none at all.

My argument, and I'll try to keep it simple since you seem to miss it each and every time I articulate it:

Guns are bad. I wish they did not exist. But they do. There are thousands of them out there. If you make them illegal, what happens to those guns? Do they disappear? No. Law abiding citizens would likely be forced to turn in guns, while criminals would keep them. So now you have an armed criminal element that knows that law abiding citizens no longer have guns. Kind of an advantage, I think.

[Joe McCarthy]

Nonsence JR. It may be true that you take the position you do more out of fear, that doesn't mean anyone else does. A great many of us can make a rational decision about whether guns should be legal.

[KoolBak]

OK, I'll play.....

I feel VERY, VERY strongly about this issue - which way I feel isn't relavent as it certainly won't sway any of your opinions and I do not feel the need to try. I will say, however, that I feel kinda sorry for the crankster that broke into my family home, God Rest His Soul.

These discussions are entertaining...just like religion and politics - an excellent place for one to hear oneself spout reason, logic, hyperbole, opinion, etc, simply to hear oneself do so (I thought J-Rogers posts were quite entertaining, as always!).

By the way, guns are not "bad"; neither are drugs, knives, alcohol, etc...it is people that can be bad while in possession of same. Let's see....if I reach baaaaaaack over 20 years to college, I believe the term is "anthropomorphization", or "applying human characteristics to non-human items"......

Fun thread - keep it up! Thanks for wasting your time reading my senseless garbage!

[thephule77]

The difference between drawing a line at guns and drawing a line at land mines is an inocent civilian can deffend himself with a gun when attacked, land mines blow up on everything not just criminals.

[vtmarik]

The land mine comment was parody, relax Phule.

[Jolly Roger]

Nonsence JR. It may be true that you take the position you do more out of fear, that doesn't mean anyone else does. A great many of us can make a rational decision about whether guns should be legal.

1) I haven't taken a position (unless you count my position that anyone's position on gun ownership is linked to perspective and fear). Frankly, I'm undecided on the gun issue. Perhaps I do not have enough fear; perhaps I have too much.
2) Do you ever lock your doors? If so, do you do it because you're not afraid someone will try entering your house or because you are afraid someone will try and enter your house? If you want to argue that you should have guns to protect yourself from criminals with guns, it's implied that you have a fear of those criminals to begin with. While this fear may be justifiable, it's still fear and it is ultimately the basis for your rational decision. However, let's take a closer look at that fear. Let's say 150K people are killed or injured by guns in the US yearly and we round the population off at about 250M, then your chances of being shot in any given year is about 0.06%. Of course, there are other factors such as your occupation, your lifestyle, your neighbourhood, etc. which could affect the likelihood of your getting shot but 0.06% looks like the average. Another factor you must have considered when making your rational decision is that people with guns in the home are far more likely to be killed or kill themselves with firearms. Considering that, on average, it is highly unlikely you will be shot and that firearm ownership only increases your chances of a firearm injury, I would have to say that your decision in this matter is definitely more a function of fear than of rational thought if, in fact, you are supporting Owl's argument that you need guns because criminals have them. Guns do not necessarily make you safer; they may only make you feel that way. If you have in fact been shot, please disregard this statement.

Sorry to jump on the anti-gun soap box there for a minute. In short, I believe this is a case of "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

[Jolly Roger]

The difference between drawing a line at guns and drawing a line at land mines is an inocent civilian can deffend himself with a gun when attacked, land mines blow up on everything not just criminals.

Does that mean no mortars or shoulder-fired missiles?

[Bozo]

We have the right to bear arms, its in the constitution.

I think we all have to remember that the constitution was written when the americans thought the britts were going to attempt to re-invade. but know when a kid can get his hands one a gun a shoot up a school, you have to think there is something worng with the laws about gun control, I am not sure exacly what they are but if we ban guns altogether it wil be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, if we ban guns is America really as free as it gloats around to cuba and iraq.

From Canada's perception of this issue it is not recent it goes back several hundred years when you fought for your independance (Did we ever thank you for attempting to liberate us?) we up hear got our indepandece basically by asking nicely.

*Note- I apologise if this these arguments/ideas have been brought up before, i was just to lazy to read all 7 pages of this thread

[thephule77]

Sorry about the over-reaction on the land mines thing (on this forum, not just this thread, it's hard to set the sarcastic away from the stupid).

The question at hand is not if people SHOULD have guns, it's if they should be ALLOWED to have guns. Just because you support gun ownership does not mean you own (I do but that's besides the point). Haveing gun ownership legal reduces break-ins because the criminal knows that theres a chance that the civilian might also be armed. If guns are illegal or not it doesn't change the criminals. Either way the people who break into your house will most likely be armed. If they don't have guns, they will have knives and then your neibors might not hear you get killed and the criminal would have a better chance to escape. If guns are illegal, break-ins will go up. You just have to decide wether you like break-ins or death, both are going to happen either way, but the difference in the amounts of break-ins will be more than the defference in deaths.

If you think guns should be illegal, to bad for you right now (it's in our constitution). But just because it's legal deosn't mean you have to have one, if you are so against it be a leader and don't own one yourself and leave those of who do alone.

[strike wolf]

well said.

[strike wolf]

We have the right to bear arms, its in the constitution.

I think we all have to remember that the constitution was written when the americans thought the britts were going to attempt to re-invade. but know when a kid can get his hands one a gun a shoot up a school, you have to think there is something worng with the laws about gun control, I am not sure exacly what they are but if we ban guns altogether it wil be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, if we ban guns is America really as free as it gloats around to cuba and iraq.

From Canada's perception of this issue it is not recent it goes back several hundred years when you fought for your independance (Did we ever thank you for attempting to liberate us?) we up hear got our indepandece basically by asking nicely.

*Note- I apologise if this these arguments/ideas have been brought up before, i was just to lazy to read all 7 pages of this thread

Technically you got your independence because GB was afraid that the colonies in Canada might organize like the ones in the US did.

[gator24]

any good citizen should be allowed to have a firearm in their house to protect themselves from the scum that reproduces in our society. we have the right to bear arms when we can not be protected by the governing body that is supposed to protect you from scum.

[nyg5680]

but certain guns should only be allowed 2 be owned my citizens