[Nuclear1]

Did you not read how I said "apples and oranges" to almost the exact same question?

[[DW]-Hunter]

Well, that article tells me damn near nothing...

it tells us that guns are dangerous and available and that education can be dangerous......


one hopes eventually that the right to carry arms in the USA is finally abolished , you have an army now and no longer rely on a militia

Why would you want that right abolished? Thats retarded. So when someone breaks into your home with an illegal firearm, WTF ARE YOU GUNNA SHOOT HIM WITH?!? A SLINGSHOT?!

[Uchuujinsan]

WTF ARE YOU GUNNA SHOOT HIM WITH?!? A SLINGSHOT?!

I'm simply not going to shoot him.
1.Changes are he is in reality a family member.
2.If he has a gun, he may rob me - I call they police, they catch him, I probably get my stuff back. If they dont, well, I still live. Guns dont protect against bullets. If a robber sees me with a gun in my hand, what will he do? Wait until I shoot?
3."Illegal firearm" - when firearms are banned, that happens far less often than you might think. If I want to break in a house that has no firearm, what do i need one for? If he wakes up and catches me, i simply run, he cant shoot me in the back, can he?
Why engaging with possible deadly, organized criminiality to purchase an quite expensive gun (what, you think smuggling is for free?) for basically no benefit?

Criminals like Bankrobbers will most likely still somehow get their weapons, thats true.
I also have to agree that, if there would be a nationalwide (enforced) gunban, it would take many years for it to have notable effect, until most firearms disappeared from the society.
During this time, things probably would get worse, not better.

[BloodEagle]

1. If s/he's breaking into your house, s/he would be the worst family member of all time.

2. You are now a witness to a crime, goodbye.

3. There are so many things wrong with that statement that I can't even begin to point them out in a coherent fashion. I'll let someone else do it.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm simply not going to shoot him.
1.Changes are he is in reality a family member.
2.If he has a gun, he may rob me - I call they police, they catch him, I probably get my stuff back. If they dont, well, I still live. Guns dont protect against bullets. If a robber sees me with a gun in my hand, what will he do? Wait until I shoot?
3."Illegal firearm" - when firearms are banned, that happens far less often than you might think. If I want to break in a house that has no firearm, what do i need one for? If he wakes up and catches me, i simply run, he cant shoot me in the back, can he?
Why engaging with possible deadly, organized criminiality to purchase an quite expensive gun (what, you think smuggling is for free?) for basically no benefit?

Criminals like Bankrobbers will most likely still somehow get their weapons, thats true.
I also have to agree that, if there would be a nationalwide (enforced) gunban, it would take many years for it to have notable effect, until most firearms disappeared from the society.
During this time, things probably would get worse, not better.

1. You have very strange family, then, if they're breaking into your house for nonviolent reasons.

2. There are a number of basic counterarguments here. The majority of home-invasion robbers that go wrong because the homeowner has a gun, for example, the robber does  fire, but because a murder gets pursued a lot more aggressively then a robbery with gun violations, he has a vested interest in not actually hitting. On top of that, I could cite S.L.A. Marshall's studies post WWII; we are not natural killers. (It's also worthwhile to note that the majority of people who commit crimes with a gun in hand are not exactly trained in its proper use; misses due to sheer ineptness are entirely possible, even likely. It's surprisingly hard to hit somebody at 15 feet in the dark holding your gun sideways like a loon.)
2a. You might just get shot anyways so you can't give a coherent report to the police about the robber, or he might adopt a dead-men-tell-no-tales approach, in which case you're screwed.
2b. Home field advantage. The man who is sitting does the hitting. He's here to rob the place, so he's not exactly looking for the people. I could go on, if you like.

3. Tell that to the rising gun crime in the UK.

[karajorma]

3. Tell that to the rising gun crime in the UK.

Tell it what exactly? Tell it that it's falling but it should be rising so that you look like you actually did your homework?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide_and_firearms_crime

[Mars]

3. Tell that to the rising gun crime in the UK.

Tell it what exactly? Tell it that it's falling but it should be rising so that you look like you actually did your homework?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide_and_firearms_crime

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[31] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by the use of the gun as a blunt instrument or as a threat, or by being shot. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[19]

Uh?

[karajorma]

Read the rest of that link. Overall gun crimes are down on 2002. Murders have stayed constant. More crimes are committed with replicas or airguns.

How is that a rising gun crime rate? Sure you can pick an arbitrary point and say that the trend is up from there but the simple fact is that it has consistently fallen or remained stable in the last 5 years based on the figures on that page. It's certainly difficult to make that claim when non-suicide deaths by firearms have remained roughly the same for over 15 years. Even at worst that means that although the number of crimes have gone up the number of people killed in the commission of those crimes has remained the same.

Surely a convincing argument against the whole "I need a gun to defend myself" premise.  If criminals having guns while the general population doesn't is supposed to result in more gun deaths it certainly hasn't here in the UK. Maybe our criminals are just too polite to kill you.

[neo_hermes]

If i was allowed to carry a ballistic Knife....

[Hellstryker]

You probably won't ever need it. But theres always that chance kara. too many people look upon the US as an untouchable piece of land that has some kind of magical barrier surrounding it. Every one of the wars we fought outside of revolutionary, 1812, WW II, and Civil was mainly us picking on the weak for oil and money. Another thing people assume is there will never be another hitler. No, there won't be, because anyone that ambitious would learn from his mistakes. You'd be dealing with a far worse individual. And finally; gangs troublesome, yes. but you think that all their guns will just go away? no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.

[NGTM-1R]

no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.

Particularly since that would be A: Unnecessary, B: Unconstitutional, C: Political Suicide.

Also, the phrase "anti tank rifle" in this day and age is really cute. But realistically, even with all the time people had before the ban to acquire them (and the ban on assault weapons didn't take any weapons away from those who already owned them! Didn't prohibit actual firing for that matter, too, but you had to tell the federal government about moving it five feet or more and if you planned to fire it; the hassle was more effective then prohibiting directly probably) there were only about 200 hard-core fanatic collectors in the US who owned anything that really answered to the description "machine gun" as opposed to automatic rifle. At least, who did so legally. None of which was ever used in crime.

[karajorma]

You probably won't ever need it. But theres always that chance kara. too many people look upon the US as an untouchable piece of land that has some kind of magical barrier surrounding it. Every one of the wars we fought outside of revolutionary, 1812, WW II, and Civil was mainly us picking on the weak for oil and money. Another thing people assume is there will never be another hitler. No, there won't be, because anyone that ambitious would learn from his mistakes. You'd be dealing with a far worse individual. And finally; gangs troublesome, yes. but you think that all their guns will just go away? no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.

There's always a chance. But equally there is a chance that having guns would do little against the military the dictator controls (gun ownership was high in Iraq and that did **** all to stop Saddam). So why should I risk a definite increase in the chance of being a victim of gun crime in order to have a weapon which might be of little use if this nebulous dictator figure does happen to come along?

[Hellstryker]

no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.

Particularly since that would be A: Unnecessary, B: Unconstitutional, C: Political Suicide.

Also, the phrase "anti tank rifle" in this day and age is really cute. But realistically, even with all the time people had before the ban to acquire them (and the ban on assault weapons didn't take any weapons away from those who already owned them! Didn't prohibit actual firing for that matter, too, but you had to tell the federal government about moving it five feet or more and if you planned to fire it; the hassle was more effective then prohibiting directly probably) there were only about 200 hard-core fanatic collectors in the US who owned anything that really answered to the description "machine gun" as opposed to automatic rifle. At least, who did so legally. None of which was ever used in crime.

It all depends on what era the said anti tank rifle is from. He also has a couple of Bazookas too, AFAIK. As for machine guns I do in fact mean the real thing, not automatic rifles. I said it because it was said a ban on firearms would stop gangs from getting them. that is not somthing that would happen instantly. It would take a matter of years. Meanwhile, the police would be running around trying to club people while getting shot up. does that sound like a bright idea to you?

Edit: Kara, the US is for the most part united as a people. not a bunch of little warring factions, that's a horrible example.

[achtung]

Are guns dangerous?  Yes.

Am I going to let the government effortlessly take another right away from me?  No.

[Dark RevenantX]

I say big, heavy guns like larger shotguns and older rifles should be encouraged.  It's almost useless for robberies and murder; try smuggling a big ****ing shotgun into someone's house, but it's extremely good for defense.  Hear someone break into your house?  Grab the shotgun from under your bed, stick in a couple shells, walk to where you hear the noises, then cock the gun as loudly as you can.

Most robbers would probably get the **** out after hearing that.

[BloodEagle]

Are guns dangerous? No.

Are knives dangerous? No.

Are people dangerous? Hell, yes.

[Hellstryker]

Well yeah, they sort of are, I wouldn't enjoy accidently stepping on a knife

[Mars]

Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.

Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.

[BloodEagle]

A gun has never killed a person. 

[Hellstryker]

Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.

Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.

You obviously arn't very bright, are you. Who pulls the trigger? the gun doesn't fire itself.