Quote from Automaton

that is the general idea of a gun - to shoot.
why not use a fake gun then?
You buy a gun for a purpose - to shoot. Be it for security or something else, that's what it's for. A knife is something you find in your kitchen to cut bread. Having a gun increases the probability that you will commit a crime with a weapon simply because that gun is intended to be used for such a purpose. Having a gun will mean that it is much more easy for you to go out and shoot someone if one day you decided to.
I disagree. If less average citizens have guns, less crimes will be committed. Why? Because a hell of a lot of people that commit these crimes are average civilians. If you have a gun, legally, one day you may get a strong urge to go out and shoot someone. All you have to do is walk out the door and do it. If you don't have a gun, and you have an urge, you'll think "Is it really worth finding out how to get one of these weapons illegally to do this?" especially if it's a spare of the moment thing.
I'm fairly certain that if both were legal the numbers using the drug would increase.
Also, this is pretty contradictory, as you've stated, but what's the POINT in having guns if a kitchen knife can do it just as well? The only difference is that with a gun you buy it intending to use it or intending to need to use it.

God I hate it when everyone here gets too lazy to just post responses in the post so you just put them in bold in the quote.

I don't know where you got your facts from, but you don't buy a gun with the intent of letting bullets fly. You buy a gun with the intent of preventing people from letting their bullets fly at you. Unless you're a big game hunter going out into the woods with your 22 to get yourself from venison which is a completely different story. Normally people don't buy a gun with the thought in their mind of "Hey I'm gonna go put bullets in some random asshole". Unless that is their intention, which doesn't differentiate from using any other type of murder weapon. I think your confusing the word "purpose" with the word "function". Guns were made with the purpose of protection, a purpose they achieve with the function to shoot. If the purpose of a gun was to shoot, you wouldn't need to pull the trigger. Once you loaded it, the bullets would fly out by themselves at random. You seem to be in this perpetual mindstate of "murder weapon situation" only, which is why you keep looking into this in such a naive fashion.

And I don't know if you noticed, but in a way, guns are illegal. As I said earlier, you can't just go down to wal-mart and pick yourself up a glock like you would an iPod. To legally own a gun, a series of tests and examinations are held. It's like being eligible to drive a car. But even still, that doesn't stop people from obtaining guns illegally. The majority of gun crimes are performed by unliscensed gun owners. Mostly because if your intention, when you got a gun, was to go end someone's life, you wouldn't want any paper trail. So I don't see where you believe outlawing guns would solve the problem.

And unless you're Bruce Lee or some kind of Shaolin ninja from a movie, I doubt a kitchen knife would help you survive when facing someone with an AK-47 (I await Myself's Australian jokes). You seem to be in this perpetual mindstate of "murder weapon situation" only, which is why you keep looking into this in such a naive fashion. If you had the intention of taking a life, your options would have branched out to what you think makes things easiest, not just "what will kill a person". You can kill people with just about anything, but that has little to do with the argument. You also seem to have completely disregarded me when I made a point to this earlier which is why you are making the exact same statement as before, so I'll say it again: Having a gun gives you the benefit of being able to protect yourself with practically no casualties. You'd have to be brave with a touch of stupid and a little bit of crazy mixed in to try something when you're staring down the barrel of a gun. Whereas, if you were defending yourself with a knife, chances are someone is going to the hospital. You seem to be under this notion that "gun=shoot" so the second it comes out of the holster you'll start seeing muzzle flashes. As I said to Ustartin, it's an intimidation factor. So you pretty much added to my point when you made the statement about "why not use a fake gun".

Quote from Jeremy

Which would make you a typical black person....

I didn't say I wasn't. I just told you not to be a typical white person.

Actually Gavel, if both parties have guns then there is an almost definit chance of someone getting hurt and DYING. If only the theif has a gun, then as you say the person in danger wouldn't try anything.

BUT before you say anything, I can't stress enough the fact that most thefts and done as a spur of the moment thing. Most crimes commited are done by amateurs, and are rarely planned further than what house is targetted. In a country where guns are not obtainable by the average person, then no amateur theif will have a gun. You keep talking about how "guns can be obtained illegally anyway". Yes, but only by the few professionals, and they would almost never target normal houses.

No one ever bothers to adress my main point (although by my count I have four serious others still unadressed and one fairly weakly).

In a country where the average person does not own a gun, the criminals don't bother getting guns either. Why bother? If I'm going to break into a house I have no need of a gun whatsoever. If a US criminal is going to break into a house he needs a gun to protect himself from the homeowner who more than likely has a gun themselves.

You claimed earlier, Gavel, that our British examples of gun crime (and lack of) are less relevant because you have more population. I would like to point out that the population density is far more important, of which ours is ten times higher.

Them school shootings need looking at as well. I'm really interested to know how you justify the deaths of hundreds of innocent school children.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

I beat you to it by like 3 hours.

Dang. I got ninja'd in the past, i swear.

Yes I think the average citizen should.

Quote from Bonk

Actually Gavel, if both parties have guns then there is an almost definit chance of someone getting hurt and DYING. If only the theif has a gun, then as you say the person in danger wouldn't try anything.

BUT before you say anything, I can't stress enough the fact that most thefts and done as a spur of the moment thing. Most crimes commited are done by amateurs, and are rarely planned further than what house is targetted. In a country where guns are not obtainable by the average person, then no amateur theif will have a gun. You keep talking about how "guns can be obtained illegally anyway". Yes, but only by the few professionals, and they would almost never target normal houses.

Actually, in most Mexican Stand-off cases, niether party gets hurt. Most of the time, they both back off because, if the other person has a gun too, their afraid they'll either miss or won't score a critical enough shot to get the other person to back off. And they don't want to deal with murder charges which are a lot easier to come by when using a gun over other murder weapons because, well quite frankly, guns are much louder than knives or fists. It seems to me like you guys have more of a hypothetical sense of a crime rather than a practical one which is why you keep thinking "gun=someone will get hurt". And if that's the case, what differentiates a gun from any other weapon?

And I don't know what it is you don't understand when I say guns aren't that easy to come by. In a country where the average citizen can own a gun, most amateur criminals don't actually own a gun. Ever get mugged on the streets of New York? How many times out do you expect to see a lowly, down-on-his-luck street mugger gaining access to a weapon that cost hundreds of dollars to obtain and hundreds more to keep? Especially when you factor in the cost of the actual ammunition to fire said gun and the cost to maintain it? I don't know why you think that just because an average citizen has the ability to obtain a gun that they actually will. Most people can't be bothered with a gun because it's like managing another car.

Quote from Zed

No one ever bothers to adress my main point (although by my count I have four serious others still unadressed and one fairly weakly).

In a country where the average person does not own a gun, the criminals don't bother getting guns either. Why bother? If I'm going to break into a house I have no need of a gun whatsoever. If a US criminal is going to break into a house he needs a gun to protect himself from the homeowner who more than likely has a gun themselves.

You claimed earlier, Gavel, that our British examples of gun crime (and lack of) are less relevant because you have more population. I would like to point out that the population density is far more important, of which ours is ten times higher.

Them school shootings need looking at as well. I'm really interested to know how you justify the deaths of hundreds of innocent school children.

I'll say what I said to Bonk: the ability to own a gun doesn't necessarilly mean that people will own a gun. According to you, the average citizen can own a gun here, but the average citizen can't afford to maintain that kind of expense. If you know that if someone were struggling to pay their mortgage and whatnot after being laid off from their previous occupation wouldn't be able to afford another car, do you honestly think they could factor in the cost of a gun into that scenario? Furthermore, as I've plainly said earlier but no one seems to listen to me, gun crimes aren't committed by legal gun owners. Pretty much every gun crime committed by someone who owns a gun was in posession of that gun illegally because, also as I said earlier, someone who obtained a gun legally would have too much paper trail to commit a crime like that. So I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that outlawing guns would cause criminals to "not even bother".

And you seem to have missed my point when I mentioned population. I wasn't talking amount of people in general, I was more referring to the type of population. Now you wouldn't disagree if I were to point out that most gun crimes occur in poor neighborhoods. Given the amount of troubled neighborhoods there are here, and the fact that every gun crime in a troubled neighborhood is performed by someone operating a gun illegally, I still fail to see any truth in your solution.

And in regards to the school shootings, you act as though school shootings happen here every single day just because people have access to guns. First of all, look at the Columbine case. The perpetrators of those crimes owned automatic assault rifles which are illegal in this country all together. You can't even get a liscense for an automatic rifle. Furthermore, if a couple kids were looking for a way to punish a school full of kids for ridiculing them, guns aren't their only choice. So if Cho-Sueng couldn't find those two glocks and he felt as strongly as he did, chances are is that he'd find some other way to go about it. For instance, take a look at Iraq. Most of their terror crimes are committed with explosives. And with instructions to create explosives all over the internet, do you really think that guns are the only way to punish an entire student body? Do you honestly think that if those kids felt strongly enough to illegally obtain guns and draft up an entire plan on how they were going to go about commit those acts of violence, that they wouldn't have found another way? Hell, the materials to create plastic explosives can be found in your local super market. Furthermore, look at the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Did the terrorists who highjacked those planes have access to guns? More like home-made knives. They highjacked a plane using prison shanks. And look how many people they killed using only a couple shanks and a hatred for America. Look at cults who believe in the whole mass suicide thing. Normally, how do you here of them achieving that goal. With a gun? No, they poison themselves. So you can't honestly think now that if the average citizen didn't own a gun, then crime would be averted at the drop of a hat. Especially when a crime like the 9/11 attacks weren't achieved with firearms.

And on another note, you keep talking about how if the average ametuer criminal weren't able to commit a crime, they wouldn't even bother. With a statement like that, I don't think you know enough about the "average ametuer criminal" to know what they will or will not bother with. It's not like most crimes that you're probably thinking of are committed by people with jobs and enough money to carry them through life. How many people with a six-figure salary do you here of that go around robbing convenience stores in a balaclava? Crimes like that are usually committed by people who feel they have no other options than to commit that crime.

Quote from Gavel

I'll say what I said to Bonk: the ability to own a gun doesn't necessarilly mean that people will own a gun. According to you, the average citizen can own a gun here, but the average citizen can't afford to maintain that kind of expense. If you know that if someone were struggling to pay their mortgage and whatnot after being laid off from their previous occupation wouldn't be able to afford another car, do you honestly think they could factor in the cost of a gun into that scenario?

So what proportion of people in America do own guns? This isn't part of the debate, I ask only because the statistics I've got here tell me that there are more guns than people in the US.

Furthermore, as I've plainly said earlier but no one seems to listen to me, gun crimes aren't committed by legal gun owners. Pretty much every gun crime committed by someone who owns a gun was in posession of that gun illegally because, also as I said earlier, someone who obtained a gun legally would have too much paper trail to commit a crime like that. So I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that outlawing guns would cause criminals to "not even bother".

I can see what you're saying and I honestly am listening to you, but I think you've either missed my point or simply disagree with me on something that no ammount of debate will sove. Answer me this: if you intend to commit a burglary on a house which you know for a fact has no guns in it, why would you take a gun in yourself?

I'm saying that you wouldn't and people don't. There is no reason to. Certainly, you could take an illegal gun in but it's just one more thing to carry at the end of the day, plus it would mean a higher penalty if you got caught.

And you seem to have missed my point when I mentioned population. I wasn't talking amount of people in general, I was more referring to the type of population. Now you wouldn't disagree if I were to point out that most gun crimes occur in poor neighborhoods. Given the amount of troubled neighborhoods there are here, and the fact that every gun crime in a troubled neighborhood is performed by someone operating a gun illegally, I still fail to see any truth in your solution.

Accepted. I misinterpreted your usage of "population". As for illegality, that's adressed elsewhere.

And in regards to the school shootings, you act as though school shootings happen here every single day just because people have access to guns.

I don't intend to. The fact that they happen at all, however rarely, is entirely due to the legal ownership of guns.

First of all, look at the Columbine case. The perpetrators of those crimes owned automatic assault rifles which are illegal in this country all together. You can't even get a liscense for an automatic rifle.

A compelling argument. I was previously unaware of this case. My explanation would be that they were inspired by the other school shootings which happen in the country, in the same way as suicide amoing young children has reached epidemic levels in Micronesia because the kids hear about it and think about it more and more the more it happens until the level of anger that's needed to tip them over the edge becomes incedibly low.

Furthermore, if a couple kids were looking for a way to punish a school full of kids for ridiculing them, guns aren't their only choice. So if Cho-Sueng couldn't find those two glocks and he felt as strongly as he did, chances are is that he'd find some other way to go about it. For instance, take a look at Iraq. Most of their terror crimes are committed with explosives. And with instructions to create explosives all over the internet, do you really think that guns are the only way to punish an entire student body? Do you honestly think that if those kids felt strongly enough to illegally obtain guns and draft up an entire plan on how they were going to go about commit those acts of violence, that they wouldn't have found another way? Hell, the materials to create plastic explosives can be found in your local super market.

Let's assume I'm right about my national group psychology for the moment. I don't think they would go for any other way. It's started off with guns because of how easy it is to take one from the parents of the killer, and guns are the method that is becoming ingrained in the US society. It's also so much more personal than a bomb and allows suicide at the end of it. Explosives don't fulfil the same sick fantasy.

This entire hypothesis is one that I've come up with on the spot. I suspect it has a load of holes in. I'm just trying to come up with an explanation as to why no school children are ever killed in Britain by their classmates at all on a larger scale than one to one with a broken pencil sharpener. I can't see a relevant difference between here and the US apart from the gun laws and the precedent.

Furthermore, look at the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Did the terrorists who highjacked those planes have access to guns? More like home-made knives. They highjacked a plane using prison shanks. And look how many people they killed using only a couple shanks and a hatred for America. Look at cults who believe in the whole mass suicide thing. Normally, how do you here of them achieving that goal. With a gun? No, they poison themselves. So you can't honestly think now that if the average citizen didn't own a gun, then crime would be averted at the drop of a hat. Especially when a crime like the 9/11 attacks weren't achieved with firearms.

I never said massive ammounts of crime would be stopped. I never mentioned terrorists or suicide cults. I keep firmly to school shootings, burglary, and murder with the odd mugging where it's relevant.

And on another note, you keep talking about how if the average ametuer criminal weren't able to commit a crime, they wouldn't even bother. With a statement like that, I don't think you know enough about the "average ametuer criminal" to know what they will or will not bother with. It's not like most crimes that you're probably thinking of are committed by people with jobs and enough money to carry them through life. How many people with a six-figure salary do you here of that go around robbing convenience stores in a balaclava? Crimes like that are usually committed by people who feel they have no other options than to commit that crime.

When the hell did I say that? Crime will continue, of course it will, but the criminals won't be as dangerous and that's what matters.

Quote from Zed

So what proportion of people in America do own guns? This isn't part of the debate, I ask only because the statistics I've got here tell me that there are more guns than people in the US.

There are more guns than people in the US, but that doesn't necessarily prove that people actually own them and that they own them legally.

I can see what you're saying and I honestly am listening to you, but I think you've either missed my point or simply disagree with me on something that no ammount of debate will sove. Answer me this: if you intend to commit a burglary on a house which you know for a fact has no guns in it, why would you take a gun in yourself?

I'm saying that you wouldn't and people don't. There is no reason to. Certainly, you could take an illegal gun in but it's just one more thing to carry at the end of the day, plus it would mean a higher penalty if you got caught.

You keep making the "what's the point" point, but I see how it has any relevance to the argument. Sure there are many criminal situations where criminals don't own or even need a gun, but what does that have to do with guns causing more danger? If anything, that contradicts your argument about how "if the average citizen can own a gun, it makes the country more dangerous". By your logic, if the average crime doesn't even call for a gun, why the worry about guns making for a more dangerous situation? And even still, if a criminal were to carry a gun while breaking into a house, that doesn't necessarily mean he's gonna go shoot up the place. Guns, in those cases, are more of an insurance policy. All you have to do is point it at someone and they'll back off. I bet in a lot of these convenience store robberies that involved guns the criminals either had airsoft guns or the guns had no ammo in them.

I don't intend to. The fact that they happen at all, however rarely, is entirely due to the legal ownership of guns.

Probably don't need to address this since you realized later it wasn't true.

A compelling argument. I was previously unaware of this case. My explanation would be that they were inspired by the other school shootings which happen in the country, in the same way as suicide amoing young children has reached epidemic levels in Micronesia because the kids hear about it and think about it more and more the more it happens until the level of anger that's needed to tip them over the edge becomes incedibly low.

Let's assume I'm right about my national group psychology for the moment. I don't think they would go for any other way. It's started off with guns because of how easy it is to take one from the parents of the killer, and guns are the method that is becoming ingrained in the US society. It's also so much more personal than a bomb and allows suicide at the end of it. Explosives don't fulfil the same sick fantasy.

And you're going off of this with what experience?

I don't know how you can say bombs don't have the ability for suicide at the end of it. You seem to be forgetting the one big stereotype middle easterns have on their record. Do I really have to say it?

You'd probably come back with that a single person performing a suicide bombing isn't the same case as a school shooting because it doesn't kill as many people as a school shooting. Which would leave me to believe you're under a "quantity>quality" type of impression (stop me if I assume wrong). At any rate, it doesn't matter if you kill 30 people or 13. Mass murder-suicide is still mass murder-suicide. The friends and families of the victims aren't going to look at the situation and say "Well, my daughter was only killed with 6 other people, so it's no big deal". And might I add, shooting situations don't always involve enough dead people to fill 5 classrooms.

This entire hypothesis is one that I've come up with on the spot. I suspect it has a load of holes in. I'm just trying to come up with an explanation as to why no school children are ever killed in Britain by their classmates at all on a larger scale than one to one with a broken pencil sharpener. I can't see a relevant difference between here and the US apart from the gun laws and the precedent.

The difference is motive and upbringing, not just lack of necessary weaponry. If you piss someone enough, they might just utilize that pencil sharpener. They probably won't kill 30 people, which is probably why you don't here about that kind of thing so much, but I don't see how it makes it any less severe just because there aren't as many bodies.

And Deathwish already noted that he's seen plenty guns in the UK, so don't act like they're some kind of myth there.

I never said massive ammounts of crime would be stopped. I never mentioned terrorists or suicide cults. I keep firmly to school shootings, burglary, and murder with the odd mugging where it's relevant.

You didn't have to mention terrorists or suicide cults. I made those points to disprove your points because school shootings are hardly as rampant nowadays as terrorist attacks.

When the hell did I say that? Crime will continue, of course it will, but the criminals won't be as dangerous and that's what matters.

You misinterpret. You pointed out that the average amateur criminal wouldn't bother with a gun if it's too hard to come by. Forgive me for being redundant as I had pointed this out earlier in this post, but if the average criminal, according to you, doesn't even bother with guns, how does that make them more dangerous?

Quote from Ustartin

Guns are more dangerous than a knife or cricket bat. Giving such power to the average citizen is too much for what it is worth.

I think ease of access and criminal preference outweighs danger factor.

And you act as if people with guns are these unstoppable forces. As far as I'm concerned (and you too, apparently) other people have guns too. Kind of evens out the balance of power, don't you think? Think of it in the sense of tigers: It's not like one tiger in all of Asia has retractable claws. All the other tigers do to. So if one tiger were to go take on another tiger, it would be an even playing field. I mean, according to you, the average citizen has a gun. If the average criminal has a gun too, it wouldn't make a difference if neither of them had a gun (of course, if neither of them had a gun and the criminal was caught, the criminal would either run away or they'd duke it out leaving a similar situation to if they both had a gun).

The countless, innocent civilians who have died for legal guns is enough for us to say, "no guns for normal people".

I'm getting kind of tired of pointing this out but, the average gun crime is committed by someone in illegal possession of a gun.

In many cases, these people may have used a bat, or crowbar, or a knife, but as I said, guns are more dangerous than any of these. The chances or surviving from a knife stab or a smack from a bat are far higher than being shot. I'm sure that in many cases, people would have used these weapons instead of a gun, but why take the risk of giving normal people guns in the first place? If the chances of surviving a knife wound are higher than that of a gun, these chances are going to add up and many lives would have been saved if guns were never allowed in the first place.

If I understand you correctly, you're concerned with everyone having guns. I refer you to my first point. If everyone had a gun, we'd be right back in the same situation as no one having a gun.

Also, you seem to think that every gun shot insures instant death. There are plenty places for you to get shot that would insure the same about of survival as a knife wound. Hell, there was a woman local to where I live that survived a point plank gun shot to the head. But that's besides the point.

My point is, you anti-gun nuts seem to think guns are filled with evil demons that cause the kindest of souls to transform into this bloodthirsty lunatic because he has "so much power". Yet at the same time, you're concerned with everyone having that kind of power. That's what confuses me about you. How do you factor that if both people have a gun, it immediately results in dead bodies?

And as I've said earlier, are you really that naive to believe that gun crimes would be averted if they weren't allowed? I hate to keep pointing this out, but where in your right mind do you believe that the majority of gun crimes are committed by legal owners? In the case of Columbine, the kids were operating illegal automatic rifles. Why are you stubbornly under the impression that you can just pop on down to your grocery store and pick up a legal assault rifle with no problem?

Quote from Gavel

You keep making the "what's the point" point, but I see how it has any relevance to the argument. Sure there are many criminal situations where criminals don't own or even need a gun, but what does that have to do with guns causing more danger? If anything, that contradicts your argument about how "if the average citizen can own a gun, it makes the country more dangerous". By your logic, if the average crime doesn't even call for a gun, why the worry about guns making for a more dangerous situation? And even still, if a criminal were to carry a gun while breaking into a house, that doesn't necessarily mean he's gonna go shoot up the place. Guns, in those cases, are more of an insurance policy. All you have to do is point it at someone and they'll back off. I bet in a lot of these convenience store robberies that involved guns the criminals either had airsoft guns or the guns had no ammo in them.

My earlier point was that crimes in the US do call for guns these days, simply because the criminal has no way of knowing whether or not the household has a gun. Like you said, it's an insurance policy, and when both sides have taken out this insurance policy there's a whole lot more firepower in there than is good for anyone. The majority of burglars, when faced with a non agressive occupant, leg it. It's usually only when people try to "protect themselves" that they get hurt (on both sides of the Atlantic), and in this instance they are not only trying to protect themselves but are faced with a much more dangerous criminal because that criminal was worried that they might stumble across an occupant who would try to protect themselves.

I don't know how you can say bombs don't have the ability for suicide at the end of it. You seem to be forgetting the one big stereotype middle easterns have on their record. Do I really have to say it?

But suicide bombing doesn't give you the chance to watch the people you hate die, and that's more what it's about.

You'd probably come back with that a single person performing a suicide bombing isn't the same case as a school shooting because it doesn't kill as many people as a school shooting. Which would leave me to believe you're under a "quantity>quality" type of impression (stop me if I assume wrong). At any rate, it doesn't matter if you kill 30 people or 13. Mass murder-suicide is still mass murder-suicide. The friends and families of the victims aren't going to look at the situation and say "Well, my daughter was only killed with 6 other people, so it's no big deal".

But there will certainly be less of said friends and families. Quality matters, but like you said yourself, it doesn't matter to the families whether their little girl was killed with 13 of 30 friends. The only difference is the number.

The difference is motive and upbringing, not just lack of necessary weaponry. If you piss someone enough, they might just utilize that pencil sharpener. They probably won't kill 30 people, which is probably why you don't here about that kind of thing so much, but I don't see how it makes it any less severe just because there aren't as many bodies.

The pencil sharpener thing happened, I think, six years ago. Since then there has also been a boy shot in Manchester on the way home from school because he was caught in the crossfire in gang warfare (one example where guns will be obtained illegally anyway like you said). These are the only two schoolchildren that have been killed in Britain by peers (roughly. I mean, the kid who shot the gun was six years older) in my memory. To confirm I used google.co.uk and searched school boy/girl (two searches) killed which backed me up on the fact that we hear about every one of our incidents because they're so rare. In the interests of completeness there was also a seventeen year old girl stabbed by her ex boyfriend but he was over twenty so I excluded it.

Now then, what you've effectively said is that Americans are less qualified to handle guns than the British because they're brought up to use them when they get angry. I'm positive that's not what you meant so I won't press the issue.

And Deathwish already noted that he's seen plenty guns in the UK, so don't act like they're some kind of myth there.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to get hold of them. The fact is that they're not immediately considered as an option and not that many people know how to get hold of them. Burglars don't need to think about them because they know bloody well that the place they're robbing is no more well armed than they are. Homeowners don't need them because they know the burglars know they're not armed and therefore they know the burglars won't be armed. It's a very elegant system. The only people who use guns are gangs and they almost entirely use them on each other. Even they tend to prefer swords and machetes for some reason, I won't pretend to know why.

You didn't have to mention terrorists or suicide cults. I made those points to disprove your points because school shootings are hardly as rampant nowadays as terrorist attacks.

And terrorist attacks are less rampant than speeding. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop them.

You misinterpret. You pointed out that the average amateur criminal wouldn't bother with a gun if it's too hard to come by. Forgive me for being redundant as I had pointed this out earlier in this post, but if the average criminal, according to you, doesn't even bother with guns, how does that make them more dangerous?

Nonononono. The average criminal doesn't bother with a gun here. In America the average criminal, or at least a much greater minority of criminals than here, need a gun to protect themselves against the victim. Seemingly defenceless victims makes for less dangerous criminals.



Edit: Seeing the next post, I feel it's harsh to tag-team on Gavel like this so I won't bother responding to whatever faults he finds in my reasoning. For now.

Quote from Gavel

I'm getting kind of tired of pointing this out but, the average gun crime is committed by someone in illegal possession of a gun.

It doesn't matter - in legalising guns, they are easier to get hold of than banning them altogether. Let's say this criminal gets his gun from a legal gun holder - he got the gun through the legalisation of guns. It's a lot easier to illegaly get hold of a gun in a country where they are legal than getting a gun in a country where they are banned altogether.

Quote from Gavel

Also, you seem to think that every gun shot insures instant death. There are plenty places for you to get shot that would insure the same about of survival as a knife wound. Hell, there was a woman local to where I live that survived a point plank gun shot to the head. But that's besides the point.

I never implied that a gun insures instant death - what I am saying is that the chances of death by gunshot are higher than getting stabbed. The woman was clearly very lucky and I wasn't saying that every gun wound is going to kill you, but overall, in total, the chances of dying from a gunshot wound are higher.

Quote from Gavel

My point is, you anti-gun nuts seem to think guns are filled with evil demons that cause the kindest of souls to transform into this bloodthirsty lunatic because he has "so much power". Yet at the same time, you're concerned with everyone having that kind of power. That's what confuses me about you. How do you factor that if both people have a gun, it immediately results in dead bodies?

The risks of someone dying if both people are holding a gun are higher than if they both are not holding a gun. I'm not saying you're going to go on a killing spree if you hold a gun, but some people clearly have. Why take the chance?

Quote from Gavel

And as I've said earlier, are you really that naive to believe that gun crimes would be averted if they weren't allowed? I hate to keep pointing this out, but where in your right mind do you believe that the majority of gun crimes are committed by legal owners? In the case of Columbine, the kids were operating illegal automatic rifles. Why are you stubbornly under the impression that you can just pop on down to your grocery store and pick up a legal assault rifle with no problem?

Well, funnily enough, gun crimes are averted where there are no guns. Who is to say this criminal doesn't steal his gun from a legal owner? Like Zed said previously, criminals don't start life with a criminal record. Tests to see whether you can get a gun legally aren't completely foolproof. And I'm sure many people have protected themselves with guns in the past - from other legal gun owners. Having guns ultimately escalates the problem which certainly wouldn't just go away by illegalising guns - but it would sure make the problem a lot better.

Quote from Zed

My earlier point was that crimes in the US do call for guns these days, simply because the criminal has no way of knowing whether or not the household has a gun. Like you said, it's an insurance policy, and when both sides have taken out this insurance policy there's a whole lot more firepower in there than is good for anyone. The majority of burglars, when faced with a non agressive occupant, leg it. It's usually only when people try to "protect themselves" that they get hurt (on both sides of the Atlantic), and in this instance they are not only trying to protect themselves but are faced with a much more dangerous criminal because that criminal was worried that they might stumble across an occupant who would try to protect themselves.

But the majority of burglars don't go for their target at all costs. For instance, in a break in situation, if the homeowner catches the burglar in the act, the person breaking in won't exactly stick around for the Mexican Stand-off. He'll bail out because it's a lot easier to identify a suspect once you can get a good physical description of them. And being an amateur criminal, murder isn't usually an option because they wouldn't want that extra felony to have to worry about.

But suicide bombing doesn't give you the chance to watch the people you hate die, and that's more what it's about.

Once again, you're basing this off of what experience? I'm sure the terrorists who bomb Palestinian Jews have the satisfaction of knowing their enemies are dead.

Also, you're basing your entire argument off of one area: murder-suicides. As if the only thing you can do with a gun is shoot up your classmates.

But there will certainly be less of said friends and families. Quality matters, but like you said yourself, it doesn't matter to the families whether their little girl was killed with 13 of 30 friends. The only difference is the number.

I personally think it would be pretty callous to focus more on the number.

The pencil sharpener thing happened, I think, six years ago. Since then there has also been a boy shot in Manchester on the way home from school because he was caught in the crossfire in gang warfare (one example where guns will be obtained illegally anyway like you said). These are the only two schoolchildren that have been killed in Britain by peers (roughly. I mean, the kid who shot the gun was six years older) in my memory. To confirm I used google.co.uk and searched school boy/girl (two searches) killed which backed me up on the fact that we hear about every one of our incidents because they're so rare. In the interests of completeness there was also a seventeen year old girl stabbed by her ex boyfriend but he was over twenty so I excluded it.

It seems to me the only thing your focusing on in your arguments is the amount of children that were killed in acts of violence.

Now then, what you've effectively said is that Americans are less qualified to handle guns than the British because they're brought up to use them when they get angry. I'm positive that's not what you meant so I won't press the issue.

If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who's been saying that the only time people use guns is when they get angry. I'm the one who's been saying that guns are used more as an intimidation factor than a murder weapon.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to get hold of them. The fact is that they're not immediately considered as an option and not that many people know how to get hold of them. Burglars don't need to think about them because they know bloody well that the place they're robbing is no more well armed than they are. Homeowners don't need them because they know the burglars know they're not armed and therefore they know the burglars won't be armed. It's a very elegant system. The only people who use guns are gangs and they almost entirely use them on each other. Even they tend to prefer swords and machetes for some reason, I won't pretend to know why.

What confuses me is that you still keep throwing around the "necessity of the situation" argument which really doesn't matter. How does the situation the average criminal gets into determine whether or not guns should be outlawed.

And terrorist attacks are less rampant than speeding. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop them.

Once again, you misinterpreted. My point wasn't "it doesn't happen that much so we shouldn't even bother". My point was that you seem to think the only crime people can commit when in possession of a gun is murdering themselves along with their classmates.

Nonononono. The average criminal doesn't bother with a gun here. In America the average criminal, or at least a much greater minority of criminals than here, need a gun to protect themselves against the victim. Seemingly defenceless victims makes for less dangerous criminals.

So if both parties have a gun, wouldn't you believe it would add an equilibrium to the balance of power?

And if you ask me, if most amateur criminals know the victim is in possession of a firearm, wouldn't you think that would make them less likely to rob that house?

Quote from Ustartin

It doesn't matter - in legalising guns, they are easier to get hold of than banning them altogether. Let's say this criminal gets his gun from a legal gun holder - he got the gun through the legalisation of guns. It's a lot easier to illegaly get hold of a gun in a country where they are legal than getting a gun in a country where they are banned altogether.

I bring up my point of illicit drugs once again. Cocaine, PCP, ecstasy, heroine; all of which are drugs that are banned from the country all together. And yet, you here stories everyday of drug abuse and arrests due to the possession of these substances everyday. As far as I'm concerned, there wasn't a point in US history where crack was legal and it certainly isn't legal to obtain through means of a license like with guns. So please point out to me how that logic could possibly work there.

I never implied that a gun insures instant death - what I am saying is that the chances of death by gunshot are higher than getting stabbed. The woman was clearly very lucky and I wasn't saying that every gun wound is going to kill you, but overall, in total, the chances of dying from a gunshot wound are higher.

Why should it matter? A murder weapon is a murder weapon whether it's a gun or a piano wire. If someone feels strongly enough about someone to the point where they intend on killing them, it shouldn't matter whether they picked up a baseball bat or a 12 gauge. The difference isn't the weapon, it's the motive.

The risks of someone dying if both people are holding a gun are higher than if they both are not holding a gun. I'm not saying you're going to go on a killing spree if you hold a gun, but some people clearly have. Why take the chance?

Many people have also gone on killing sprees with knives and chainsaws. Why take the chance?

Well, funnily enough, gun crimes are averted where there are no guns. Who is to say this criminal doesn't steal his gun from a legal owner? Like Zed said previously, criminals don't start life with a criminal record. Tests to see whether you can get a gun legally aren't completely foolproof. And I'm sure many people have protected themselves with guns in the past - from other legal gun owners. Having guns ultimately escalates the problem which certainly wouldn't just go away by illegalising guns - but it would sure make the problem a lot better.

The tests aren't the only thing keeping idiots from legally owning guns. When you buy a gun there's a paper trail. You're put into a database so that if you decide to go on a killing spree, it's easier to track you down. The barrel of every gun is unique. There are scientific methods that can be used to determine which gun the bullet came from and who owns that gun. Any legal gun owner wouldn't be stupid enough to put themselves in that kind of situation unless they planned on killing themselves afterward.


And there's one other thing everyone's forgetting. In a world without guns, movies would be a lot lamer.

Quote from Gavel

I bring up my point of illicit drugs once again. Cocaine, PCP, ecstasy, heroine; all of which are drugs that are banned from the country all together. And yet, you here stories everyday of drug abuse and arrests due to the possession of these substances everyday. As far as I'm concerned, there wasn't a point in US history where crack was legal and it certainly isn't legal to obtain through means of a license like with guns. So please point out to me how that logic could possibly work there.

Drugs are completely different to guns. People are addicted to drugs, which is why they are so rife. There's lots of drugs here in the UK and they are too banned. There is also a gun ban and there are no guns. They are completely different and cannot be compared.

Why should it matter? A murder weapon is a murder weapon whether it's a gun or a piano wire. If someone feels strongly enough about someone to the point where they intend on killing them, it shouldn't matter whether they picked up a baseball bat or a 12 gauge. The difference isn't the weapon, it's the motive.

But if someone does decide not to kill someone because of not having a gun then problem solved.

Many people have also gone on killing sprees with knives and chainsaws. Why take the chance?

Knives and chainsaws actually have practical and real reasons why they are allowed to be owned by the public. They are not weapons purely made to hurt and kill people - it is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill and to hurt.

The tests aren't the only thing keeping idiots from legally owning guns. When you buy a gun there's a paper trail. You're put into a database so that if you decide to go on a killing spree, it's easier to track you down. The barrel of every gun is unique. There are scientific methods that can be used to determine which gun the bullet came from and who owns that gun. Any legal gun owner wouldn't be stupid enough to put themselves in that kind of situation unless they planned on killing themselves afterward.

Many on killing sprees do kill themselves afterwards and do not underestimate human stupidity. Even if they are traced, the damage is done and people are dead.

And there's one other thing everyone's forgetting. In a world without guns, movies would be a lot lamer.

I can name plent of movies that don't feature guns. High School Musical, The Lion King, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter...

15 chars .

i agree wholeheartedly that we all have the right to bear arms im this is america aren't we supposed to have rights

Quote from Gavel

And there's one other thing everyone's forgetting. In a world without guns, movies would be a lot lamer.

What about all those Asian movies with the guys shooting fire out of their hands and slicing people up with swords?