^^^
At least someone knows what they are talking about

That's what everyone's forgetting!

So if you witness a murder, you essentially have to do nothing about it since its the goverments responsibility to take care of it? To say that a citizen isn't responsible for helping to uphold the law is a rather faulty argument.

An armed populace doesn't keep tyrannical rulers down, look at Iraq, they're not short on guns by any means, but no-one ever shot Saddam.

I'd draw the line at pistols/rifles/shotguns

pistols/rifles at gun-clubs/shooting-ranges, rifles/shotguns on farms.

Can't see much reason for keeping guns in the suburbs.


If we live in happy-euro-land, mini-happy-euro-land, or canuck-happy-euro-land, where people shoot each other less. Is it still ok to not own a gun? I've never seen a gun that wasn't carried by a cop, and here every cop carries one. But do I still need one?

Is crime in the US worse than everyone assumes or something blujay? you tell me

P.S. come join the argument spe, you know you want to!

Decide for yourself whether you need to carry one, and whether you want to carry one. That's up to you. I'm not saying it should be mandatory. I'm saying that it should be legal.

Canada has more guns than the USA. It has 7 million guns, and 10 million people... A significant number more.

Whoah whoah whoah. Slow down. How can you say that Iraq was not short on firearms? Are you honestly telling me that a fair amount of Iraqi citizens had firearms? If so, why didn't they revolt, and where did you get that information?

I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about, as I live in Toronto and visit the Eaton Centre frequently, I was just using it as an example for my point. I'm very much aware of the gun laws here in Canada. I have backpacks big enough to carry rifles for me and a few buddies anyways. And again - others have said that legal rifles are easily modifiable to carry full or extended clips, but personally I don't know much about that and made the assumption that they were correct and no one pointed out that it was a false statement.

jEDIkIRBY - I disagree with you. Look at the school shooting in Columbine. Those kids weren't trained as far as I know. I think someone with a rifle is extremely dangerous, trained or untrained.


I think what this debate comes down to is a difference of morals and personalities - I don't see the point in collecting firearms. Brian does. I don't think people should take the responsibility of justice and defense into their own hands. Blujay does. These are differences that endless debating will never change, and with no clear solution to gun crime it is difficult to weigh the pros and cons of this situation.

A trained, sane person with a rifle is not dangerous.

Don't you dare tell me that I can't take responsibility for the defense of my own person and property.

Columbine, eh? What if someone there had been armed? They might have been able to save some lives. By the time the police got there, the killers had already killed themselves, and many others. Do you still want only the police to be armed?

A government's responsibility is to protect the liberty of individuals. A government that constantly watches the people and requires them to be somewhere at a certain time would be a government that "protects the people" but would be an unjust government.

Also, it's not about protecting the "people" as though we were a borg collective. It's about protecting the rights of each individual.

Therefore, a government cannot enact a law that violates rights, such as gun control. (Reasons why gun control is a violation are listed in the parts of the my post above which haven't been answered yet).





Since it's in your self interest not to be shot and to solve the problem, why don't you do something about it? You, not necessarily a "corporation" can step in and solve the problem by education and such.

Also, even if the government is "better" at stripping individual rights away, why should that make it right? What if they decided to force you to go from house to house, checking for illegal guns. The government would be doing something to solve the problem, at your expense. It isn't right to sacrifice someone against their will even if it's for "greater public safety" and it isn't right to sacrifice someone's right to defend themselves either.

Banning guns is NOT the same thing as getting rid of all guns or preventing them from entering the countery. If you think we can do that, lets have a little look at how well the war on drugs is doing.

Pretty much every household in Iraq has at least one automatic rifle. I think the Ba'ath Party gun laws were that each household was limited to less than five fully automatic weapons, or something like that. Guns are often used in celebrations, like cheap firecrackers.

Indeed, it does lead to the question "Why didn't they revolt"? Perhaps because they didn't want to get rid of him. Even today, Saddam Hussein is in the top six most popular politicians in Iraq. The current leader isn't on that list at all.

So are you saying that you are a perfect shooter, and that you will never panic and shoot someone under any circumstances, that you will always be in a situation where you will act properly? I'm not prepared to accept that you, and the thousands of other gun owners, will act properly. I think under certain circumstances, even the most disciplined of gun-toting civilians can make mistakes, and with firearms, these mistakes can be castrophic. NO ONE IS PERFECT. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has a breaking point. Guns do not work well with human nature.

Good point, Connection Problem! Useing this logic, we should also ban cars! I'll write to my senetor right away!

Freelancer: Maybe revolts against ruthless dicatorships by gun-toting discontents is a stupid libertarian wet-dream.

Obi: Cars are tools. Guns are toys.

And since guns are toys we ban them?

Guns ARE tools though. I use them to get food, and I feel its more humane to hunt a moose and eat it, than buying a storebought cow or something. Because of the fact, when your hunting them, they at least have a chance to get away. Unlike cows at a slaughter house.
BTW, why do you think Guns arent tools?

I'm more inclined to believe in Mort-Hog's idea.

No matter how many guns you have, an army will stop an unroganized rabbel any day. Plus, some people loved him. After all, when some one's oppressed others benefit right?

Read mine and other previous posts, we've already addressed that. I wouldn't want to put you through the paintstaking task of writing properly and formally.

I don't think there's much point in continuing this thread. Everything's been said, and now it's turning sour. The only thing left to do is ponder, and I doubt anyone will change their mind. I'm sorry for insulting whoever I called a coward--I wasn't even paying attention to whose posts I was responding to--but I didn't say it for the purpose of insulting you; I was just making a point. And I'm sorry to Brian for my part in derailing this thread. I guess that is all.

No hard feelings, I don't hold grudges from debates.

banning guns in australia worked. Only the organized crime in melbourne is a problem with illegal wepons.

We should ban breathing.

I say we ban hunting with firearms. You want a moose, you hit it with a rock until it dies. Or bite out its jugular. Until the animals have guns too it's not fair.

Didn't you see Minority Report? A man in that movie tried to kill his adulterous wife with a pair of scissors!

My point is, in that situtation, violence will happen regardless of what tools are available.



If a kid is in desperate need of cash, wouldn't he be more likely to simply steal the money from his dad rather than steal a gun, go outside, find some isolated people and mug them?

Assume he steals the gun from his dad, though. And also assume the person he is trying to mug also has a firearm. The mugee is smart and kills the punk. Can't be too hard, because this kid is obviously a pathetic ***** for trying to mug somebody. Sure, someone's dead, but he's just a punk.



...How often exactly does this happen? Is this based on any form of reality, or an imagined nightmare?

How come the Average Joe is unreliable and dangerous when he's trying to defend himself against an attacker, but as soon as he's turning deranged and murderous, he can used a firearm with deadly precision?



That alone almost made me pee my pants.



The colonies formed their armed forces in 1775, before the Revolutionary War even started. This included an army, navy, and colonial marines. The Constitution was written after the war was over, when the Limeys were no longer pillaging our towns and raping our women. Read a history book.

It just seems to me that a lot of these fears of semi-automatic rifles are simply based on just that--fear. I know bluejay has eloquently made this point before, but I feel I must reiterate.

First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not automatic rifles. The latter were banned back in the 30's. So semi-automatic rifles can be modified to fire full-auto? Chances are, if a person with such engineering know-how is doing such a thing, and he is doing so with malevolent intent, you aren't going to stop him from commiting some dastardly deed no matter what laws are put in place.

But secondly, let's assume that everyone is given an automatic rifle. The anti-gun argument is that it'd be ever so easy to walk into a martketplace and cut loose. The problem is, people don't do that. What's to stop you? Why, conscience of course. A basic knowledge of what is right and just. Even thugs and murderers would say 'No, mass murder is silly.' And those who don't say that aren't going to be deterred by gun laws.

I live in southern Wisconsin, in a largely suburban area. There was a huge automatic rifle ring that got busted in a relatively small city nearby where I live. Rifles are not hard to acquire.

So stop being so silly and emotional. Ya'll aren't using logic, you're using stereotypes and broad exaggerations. And if you try to take away my guns I will shoot you, because I am a stupid and untrustworthy Average Joe prone to fits of blood-thirsty rage.

At close range, all weapons, firearms and knives alike, are deadly. Columbine, gas station holdups, and muggers alike rely on the closeness with their targets. You'll find rifles are less used in holdups due to their length. The closer they are to you with a longer barel, the more they have to aim. That's why assult rifles wouldn't be used in jo-shmow crimes anyway, let alone would they be effective.

And again, you people assume an assult rifle is some terrifying powerful force of nature that can fire at the rate of a carbine. There are carbine assult rifles, but that doesn't mean all assult rifles cary this power. Don't base your gun knowledge on Counter Strike.

JediKirby

background checks are funny.

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they have quite a lot of stabbing deaths in japan?
Even though thats somewhat unrelated. People are still killing.

Overlord: Hunting is strictly recreational in America. Its implements, like baseball's, are toys.

Obi: Guns are dangerous. They make intentionally or accidentally killing people much simpler. As toys, they are luxury items. The US doesn't let just anyone drive, and cars are critical to survival. Guns should require tests, licenses, and registration. Increasingly dangerous guns should require increasing high benchmarks and invasions of privacy, just like automobiles. Ridiculously dangerous weapons should be banned, like tanks.

Cougar: It's more difficult to stab someone to death than shoot them to death, both physically and psychologically. People around here get drunk at frat parties and start whaling on each other with fairly hostile intent, and the worst that happens is a broken nose. Give those same people guns and the situation ends with body bags. Violence will happen, but the extent of damage depends on the tools available.

Hold it, my friend. There's a problem with your analogy. You start off saying that it's psychologically harder to stab someone than to shoot them. That's assuming someone is of sound mind, which of course they wouldn't be anyway if they were going to murder someone in cold blood.

You further illustrated this point by bringing up the drunken brawl scenario, where you assume that in the abscence of guns, the only other alternative would be fists. What happened to the knives? In the hands of enraged drunkards, a knife would be just as deadly as a firearm. Don't assume pistols are some demon-possessed ultimate deathbringers. Some shots can kill, others won't. Same with stab wounds.

Cougar: Who said we were talking about premeditated murder? In fact, I thought we were specifically addressing crimes of passion.

Knives are not as deadly as guns. In a drunken brawl, you win if you stick your opponent once or shoot him once. Which one is more deadly? Anything can be used to kill someone, with enough effort, time, and willpower. Guns make it easy.

A quote from some brilliant person on another forum: I'd add that people are squimish. Shooting someone from 10 feet away is a heck of a lot easier than stabbing or throttling them.

Not that I've ever done it (ha, ha), but shooting someone, especially if they are moving, is harder than stabbing them, depending on distance. Especially if the shooter is drunk. Or nervous. Or frightened. Or angry. Etc.

I honestly wonder about the average lethality of bullet wounds vs. knife wounds. It would seem to me that a decent sized knife blade could cause a lot more bleeding than a bullet wound. That is depending on where the bullet hits, of course. But since I really have no first-hand knowledge of the issue, I won't claim that it's one way or the other. Just keep an open mind about it until we have some facts.

On the other hand, I've had enough discussions of bullet wounds and lethality on the America's Army forums. I'm not sure that I want more here.

I'm not going to step back into the debate but a woman was recently attacked by someone with a chainsaw in Oakville. The attack was completely unprovoked. Her injuries were not life threatening, and the man was subdued by 4 people. Would he have been taken down if he had an assault rifle?

Geez, I dunno man. I mean, if I was a bad guy and had a chainsaw, seems like it'd be fairly easy to crank it up and start swinging it around, and if I were someone trying to subdue him, I don't think I'd want to try to grab him in between swings, ya know?

Good grief. Man. Just argh. "Would he have been subdued if he had an 'assault rifle'?" Clearly this person was disturbed. Chainsaw, assault rifle, whatever, he was going to do something bad. Geez, if he can't even kill someone with a chainsaw, he probably couldn't even hit anything with a firearm.

But that's all speculation, and I tire of speculation.

My guess? No..

And what does that prove?

Ah, thanks, Raoul. So simply put.

I haven't read all the posts, but one of the big issues with assualt rifles, even the semi-auto ones, is that it is not difficult to convert them to fire in full auto. All it takes is a little kit and a couple of minutes of work. Allowing assault rifles to be legal again will only make it easie for people to get thier hands on automatic weapons, which is not good because police do not carry full auto weapons.

...Except that full-auto rifles tend to be less effective, which is why most militaries are switching to semi-auto and 3-round burst weapons.

Weapons wouldn't be a problem if people weren't idiots or lowlife criminal scum. We should be regulating breeding instead of guns.