Control Arms (guns being legal)

I am against guns being legal. You don't need a gun in your house. Its sad because when I watch the news theres at least one person shot everyday.

Rock'n'rollsuicide:

I am against guns being legal. You don't need a gun in your house. Its sad because when I watch the news theres at least one person shot everyday.

Exactly. And sadly there's nothing the law can do about people who don't need guns having them. People who live in extremely safe neighborhoods have guns in their homes for "self defense", but those guns usually end up being used for other, illegal matters. But there's always the thousands of unsafe neighborhoods in which it is necessary to have a gun. And most of the people living in those places can't afford one or the proper ammunition. It's a vicious circle.

Rock'n'rollsuicide:

I am against guns being legal. You don't need a gun in your house. Its sad because when I watch the news theres at least one person shot everyday.

I disagree.
If a violent man or two breaks into my home with the intention of hurting me or my family, I would much rather know that I have a gun to protect me with. I'm a tiny woman, I could never go one on one with a big strong guy, physically. I would need a gun. Not with the intention to kill. But to protect and defend myself, my family and my home.

I think guns should be illegal.

Guns kill from a distance, making it easier for a murderer to get away with the crime. If they can successfully dispose of the weapon, they don't need to leave fingerprints on their victim, so theres less chance of them being caught and convicted. Also, distance allows the shooter to dehumanise people. Guns are an "easy" way to kill.

People talk about the need for guns for self-defence, but the most threat comes from other people with guns. If there were fewer guns, there'd be less threat. If people have to think of more complex ways to kill, they have to think about it more and will often realise that to do so would be wrong or, at least, very damaging to themselves.

And I don't think the argument about the American constitution holds any water at all. Laws reflect what is legal not what is right and they can be changed. Furthermore, they reflect the time in which they were written. But the circumstances have changed dramatically between the time those laws were written and now.

--Yara--:

I disagree.
If a violent man or two breaks into my home with the intention of hurting me or my family, I would much rather know that I have a gun to protect me with. I'm a tiny woman, I could never go one on one with a big strong guy, physically. I would need a gun. Not with the intention to kill. But to protect and defend myself, my family and my home.

Okay that is a good point. I have a question are we taking about hand guns? Or are we talking about semi-automatics? A hand gun I can understand somebody having for protection.

Mud:

And I don't think the argument about the American constitution holds any water at all. Laws reflect what is legal not what is right and they can be changed. Furthermore, they reflect the time in which they were written. But the circumstances have changed dramatically between the time those laws were written and now.

That is true, but people who have the power to change the bill of rights won't. Because it's in the bill of rights, people just don't want to change it. In some situations I would feel safer having a gun. Like Yara said if someone broke into my house and was trying to harm me I would want a gun. Some people should not have guns. If a person is mentally unstable or has a criminal record they should not be allowed to have a gun.

--Yara--:

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

Presumably in those other countries, people were murdered by other weapons. England has the smallest number of people murdered by guns, but there's a 'knife culture' here, so maybe people are just murdered by knives rather than guns. :/

2000. World Homicide Rates In Descending order.
(Number of homicides per year per 100,000 people)

50.14 South Africa
21.40 Russia (1999)
10.00 Lithuania
9.94 Estonia
6.22 Latvia
5.64 U.S.A.
2.94 Spain
2.86 Finland
2.84 Northern Ireland
2.72 Czech Republic
2.65 Slovakia
2.58 New Zealand
2.50 Romania
2.31 Turkey (1999)
2.23 Poland
2.11 Scotland
2.04 Hungary
1.97 Sweden
1.81 Australia
1.79 France
1.76 Canada
1.61 England & Wales
1.54 Belgium
1.50 Greece
1.48 Ireland (Eire)
1.42 Netherlands
1.42 Italy
1.41 Slovenia
1.24 Portugal
1.17 Germany
1.10 Japan
1.09 Norway
1.09 Denmark
1.06 Malta
1.01 Austria
0.96 Switzerland
0.60 Cyprus
0.23 Luxembourg

These figures are a little out of date, and I'll admit to knowing virtually nothing of many of the mentioned countries' stance on gun control, but I can say that, at that time, every UK country (very strict gun control) has a lower rate than the USA (much more relaxed gun control).

I'm not letting people take away my guns.
I'm not a psycho. My dad and sister like to hunt, my family likes to target practice, and if someone breaks in, I want to be able to protect myself.
Sure, if they didn't have the gun, they couldn't break in. Wait, they could have KNIVES or BOMBS.
And what if the government pulls another Holocaust?
I want to be able to protect myself.

I even have constitutional rights. I want to bear my arms!!!
I don't CARE if it gives someone the power to pump me full of lead, I want to bear them!!!

i see what you mean about rpotection and i fink aslong as your not going around shooting the fuck outa people then theres no harm. like how many physco's are there in the world atleast if youve got the arms to protect yourself , rapes , muggings and a hell of a lot of other crimes will go down. okay so people get killed with guns but they get killed wth a lot of other stuff to . i mean more people die thrpugh knivings but u cant ban people owning knives. the hole gun thing has been blown way outa proportion and people should just understand the few people who own guns arnt using them to go out and about shooting the first person they see they use them for hunting and just incase. its the people who arnt alowed guns hu go out shooting the shit outa people. does that make sense

You know, if you take guns away from civilians, then only criminals will have them. Black market, hand made, imported-they'd be armed, we'd be helpless.

But it would be much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on them. And yes, people could use knives and bombs to kill, but bombs require much more thought and planning and knives require the attacker to be closer to the victim, giving the victim more chance to get away and the attacker more involvement with the victim. And if the attacker wanted to use a bomb or a knife, they would anyway.

And so many people are shot accidentally each year, be it in hunting accidents or accidental fire. And regarding hunting, I don't think "sport" should get in the way of protection of innocent people.

And like I said, Constitutional Rights can be changed. It might not be easy, but it can be done. And to be honest, when the government is ignoring human rights at Guantananmo (sp?), the right to hold a gun seems a pretty insignificant loss.

If they can change the right to bear arms, they can change the right to free speech.
The criminals wouldn't have too much trouble getting guns. Come up with a law and they will find a hundred ways against it. Remember prohibition?
They could get them from other countries, by making them, the black market, etc. But innocent people wouldn't have a chance.

If you outlaw guns, you have to outlaw knives, bombs, and all manner of other things that could be used as a weapon. Coz let's face it, if you take a murderer's gun away, he's not very likely to lie down and think "Well I have no weapon now, I may as well give up."
People always find ways to get around problems and find replacements or substitutes for things.
I don't know what the weaponry culture is like in the rest of the world, but in Belfast, I'm more worried about being knifed or bombed than I am about being shot. It's just not that likely compared with the knife and bomb crimes there have been in the last few years.
And then there are people who need guns for their living or protecting their family. Hunters, police officers, normal average people who you wouldn't think of when I say 'guns'. Everyone just has this image in their head that it's always a bad man who has a gun. What about the good guys who are there to protect you with their guns?

Well obviously, you make allowances. In certain circumstances, certain people are allowed to hold a gun. But there has to be a very definite reason as to why it is necessary.

And you're right - if you're intent on killing, you'll kill anyway. But banning guns makes it that little more difficult. And "crimes of passion" are so much easier with guns. They're immediate. Bombs and to a certain extent knife attacks take more thinking.

And they already change laws all the time. They change them when they're outdated or unsafe. Of course, its technically possible that they could make murder legal. But it wouldn't happen. Changing the right to hold a gun, whether you agree or disagree, would be justifiable. Changing people's freedom of speech would not. And they've already bent the rules on people's right to a fair trial. But thats another issue.

But if it's okay to take guns from innocent people because some people misuse them, what would stop them from taking away peaceful people's freedom of speech because some people say obscene or violent things about the president?

There's this poem that goes like this:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

If we let them take away our right to guns because we don't want guns, there's no telling what's next. They might take away our right of peaceful assembly, and no one will say anything because they don't want to peacefully assemble. The might go freedom of the press, and they won't say anything because they don't want to read about how bad the president is. Then goes freedom of speech, because they don't have anything to say. Then goes the right to liberty, and they won't say anything cause government knows best. Then goes pursuit of happiness, and they'll be fine because their happiness comes from serving the government. Then goes the right to life, and they will think it's okay because it's what the government wants.
Then, there will be nothing left.
It's far fetched, but it is 100% possible.

PS.
I appreciate you not seeming very angry because it's irritating to argue with people who get all huffy because someone doesn't think the same way they do.

Thats possible. But very very unlikely. And the Constitution has been changed before. If there was a part of the Constitution that said every second child born to every family should be drowned, there would be no problem in changing it. No one would once mention that it would leave the door open for other changes to the Constitution because they're unrelated issues.

Darth Yara:

Rock'n'rollsuicide:

I am against guns being legal. You don't need a gun in your house. Its sad because when I watch the news theres at least one person shot everyday.

I disagree.
If a violent man or two breaks into my home with the intention of hurting me or my family, I would much rather know that I have a gun to protect me with. I'm a tiny woman, I could never go one on one with a big strong guy, physically. I would need a gun. Not with the intention to kill. But to protect and defend myself, my family and my home.

Wow, something we agree on.