GUNS!!!

James McAvoy.:

I feel so awkward for bringing this back but it seems nobody else is making this argument -- rather, not enough people are making this argument for people to understand it.

1.) The gun did not get up and shoot itself. The person behind the gun is responsible for shooting someone.
BLAMING GUNS FOR CRIME IS THE SAME THING AS BLAMING A PENCIL FOR MISTAKES.
Hating guns, imo, is stupid. Like a Mod said earlier, many different weapons can be used in a murder. Knives. Pans. Bats. Does this suggest we should ban cooking pans because somebody was hit in the back of the head with one and died? No. Guns did not commit the crime, the person did, this is why the person does time in jail, not the gun.

2.) A lot of people (and I would know, my father and all of my cousins hunt) get permits are actually quite responsible behind a gun. It is of the persons own accord if they are going to use a gun with the intent of killing or injuring someone.

3.) If guns really are banned, like many of you want, what do you think you're going to do if someone robs your house? Are you going to be safer than the person who keeps a gun in their house? Because, as someone stated before, in the US it is legal to shoot somebody breaking into your home. If you think you can defend yourself with ignorance, I wish you good luck. And if you think you're totally prepared to stab somebody with a knife if the time comes, I wish you good luck as well.

4.) I saw this argument too. "Why shoot somebody? They're a human being, they have feelings, too." Yeah, okay, he had feelings. He was a kind, kind man. You know who else was a beauty? This guy. Nope, they totally should have lived, they just had a lot of feelings.

5.) And also, excuse me @ the debate on Columbine. Do you think, if guns had been banned, Columbine wouldn't have happened? Those boys were sick and twisted. The absence of guns would NOT be a factor -- they would have merely STABBED everyone instead. They could have used ANYTHING to murder those people, they just happened to be guns.

6.) If a little kid finds a gun, shoots it, and happens to kill someone, no, it is not technically the kids fault. (I believe this is still classified as manslaughter though, please correct me if I'm wrong?) However, do you think a pair of well educated parents who care for their children would even leave guns around in the house? In this case, is it not fair to blame the parenting, or lack of parenting thereof, for the killing? (My parents keep guns in my house, and I have young siblings, but our guns are locked in a safe in the basement.)

I REST MY CASE.

1. I'm pretty sure there are far more crimes committed with guns rather than 'bats' or knives, except maybe for ancient times. And also guns are obv far more dangerous and likely to be used in murders.

2. I am sure your parents or whatev are perfectly responsible people, but there is no definite way of knowing what the person's intentions are, no matter how normal or sane they are, so should everyone really take the chance?

3. If someone robs your house, I don't think your main preoccupation would be protecting your things or attacking the robber as much as fleeing for your life. If you do have a gun, it wouldn't be in your fucking pocket to just shoot the robber, would it? Therefore, it might not be coming in very handy. Also, what is with these extreme situations everyone projects? Most normal average people don't go through shit like this and in the case of such an event there is always the POLICE, why do people seem to be forgetting this? This is not the wild west, you're not on your own fighting for your life in a post apocalyptic earth.
Also by making gun rules stricter, there is a great chance the number of such crimes would drop as well.

5. Yeah, I'm sure they would have lethally ~stabbed everyone in that school and no one could do anything to stop them. If they had a knife that situation would have not even caused half as much trouble.

6. I like to think responsible parents don't just keep guns around their house or their family and children. And if a killing like this happens it is definitely undoubtedly the parents fault only and they probably should go to jail for life.

wikipedia:

Levels of gun violence are low in Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and many other countries.[8] The United States has the highest rate among developed countries.[9]

I think USA is the one where there are less restrictive laws for guns and also something according to the constitution or whatev. If this does not help make my point, I don't know what will.

James McAvoy.:

Okay, I hate to break your bubble, but countries who have banned firearms have a higher crime rate than the United States. Australia and England have already banned ownership of guns, but it hasn't made their countries any safer.
...
In England -- 1999-2000, street crime in London rose 32%.

The increase in street crime in London/the UK in general is can be attributed to the rising ownership of mobile phones, iPods and other valuable electronic items that are now on most people's person when they are on the street.

As a British citizen who keeps an eye on the news, most of the serious street crime is knife, not gun, related. Nearly double the number of fatalities in street crime were knife rather than gun-related. Knives are seen as far more glamorous than guns; I imagine this is due to restrictions on gun ownership in the UK, and although more could be done to prevent knife crime, I think it's safe to say that it's easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun than a knife due to the fact that a knife can only be used to wound more than one person when the assailant is in close proximity to them, whereas guns can injure many people from a distance and up close - the potential for a massacre is easier with a gun, which is what I think Wild At Heart was getting at about Columbine.

Sources: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/YPandStreetCrime.pdf, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3640626.ece

James McAvoy.:

Let's take a look at this, shall we? This is a chart showing homicides by weapon type. It was highest in about 1993-1994 for handguns. Has it gone up since then? No, it's actually falling.

1.) Any kind of weapon is dangerous. I'm sure people killed with butcher knives or chain saws, chloroform, or duct tape can agree that they're all pretty dangerous. Chain saws are extremely dangerous and you don't see them being banned because they can be used as a weapon, do you? And most people, when they think of horror/murders, will think of a chain saw. Not a gun.

2.) This is true -- there are some people who get guns with bad intentions. But what would you change? Have the person acquiring the gun answer the question; "What do you intend to do with this gun?" They will lie. Nobody's about to say they're going to murder someone when they buy a gun. It is essentially impossible to make sure until after a crime has been committed.

It would be wise to check the person's criminal records, obviously, before allowing them a gun -- and probably also to check their family's criminal records (because depression/suicidal tendencies/murderous tendencies have been scientifically proven to run in families).

3.) People smart enough to have guns in their home, or at least in their room, keep them in a place in which they are easy to get to. I know several people, including my own family, who keep guns on their own floor. They are in a place in which you can get to them easily. (Not so easily, however, that a child can stumble upon them and shoot it.)

If you're a brave person, you're not going to shout "EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!" and get out of your house. If you were brave, you'd protect your family instead of fleeing. If you were alone, and you happened to flee, the criminal is not going to give up because you're out of the house. They will follow you. And you can save your life with a gun, you don't have to kill them. Shoot them in the knee if you want. You may argue that guns kill people, but what about when somebody is threatening to murder you? Set aside the fact that this may not happen every day, but what if it did? You could save your life with a gun.

Have you ever heard of home invasion crimes? I can tell you several different cases of home invasion crimes, in which these people would have survived had they kept a firearm handy.

Okay, I hate to break your bubble, but countries who have banned firearms have a higher crime rate than the United States. Australia and England have already banned ownership of guns, but it hasn't made their countries any safer.
In Australia -- from 1997-1999, murders rose 6.5%, attempted murders 12.5%.
In England -- 1999-2000, street crime in London rose 32%.
The US. is not even in the Top 10 Most Violent Nations! Since 1991, we have more guns, more gun owners, more gun owners carrying guns and more citizens living among citizens carrying guns yet total crime has decreased by 35%.
As of 2009, there has been 429.4 violent crimes committed for every 100,000 people, as opposed to 1990's 731.8 or 1995's 684.5.

4.) With or without guns, Columbine was/is/would have been/could have been a terrible act of murder and insanity. If you want to debate this, go right ahead.

5.) Well, there it is, case closed.

If THIS does not make MY point, then I honestly don't know what will.
(Sources for crime percentages came from the ever helpful book Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies by Gregg Jackson, which happened to be lying around the house. )

First of all, your chart clearly n obviously shows that the crime rate with guns is almost DOUBLE than the one with other weapons. Ring a bell?
Also knives or the other things you have stated are not as dangerous as guns, which are easier to use (by anyone) and definitely more lethal. Knives, chainsaws etc. have other main purposes, such as cutting salad or trees, their main purpose is not KILLING, as it is with pistols. Moreover, you cannot base your statements on horror movies, this is not tv it's real life. I mean how many people are killed with a chainsaw and how many are killed with a gun?

2. The things that I would change and I think it is the main purpose of this topic, make more restrictive laws of obtaining a gun obviously, I mean the fewer people who get them the lower the risk of actually using them.

3. Okay so what is this magic place? Children can't reach it, but in case of a robbery you can just pull it out. Right...
Also the cases of such crimes, compared to the population of a country are extremely rare. Personally, I have never even come across such notions except for movies. Again, if the laws on guns would be stricter, the number of such crimes would drop as well. I'm sure most robbers are not psycho sociopathic murderers, but just desperate people who happened to get their hands on a gun. That is, you cannot trust human nature, so just giving out guns to everyone would not help protect families, quite the opposite.
I don't have a gun, no one I know has a gun, few people in my country have guns therefore I feel safe.
Maybe some people should consider properly securing their house, rather than buying weapons. Again, we live in a civilised society, not every man for himself land.

And I don't find the information you have provided in any way valid or reliable. I mean it's just an apparently anti conservative manifesto with the american flag on the cover. It doesn't show the actual figures or statistics of the total crimes in these countries compared to each other and the usa. The number might have risen but it does not lead to any conclusion. Is it higher than in countries where it's easier to obtain such weapons or not?
Who is this guy who wrote? Where did he get his info?
Moreover, in your list (top 10 most violent countries) there are mostly countries at war, anarchies etc. I don't see any developed countries. when I meant USA has a high crime rate I meant comapared to other similar countries such as UK, France, Italy etc.

MAD CUNT:

James McAvoy.:

Okay, I hate to break your bubble, but countries who have banned firearms have a higher crime rate than the United States. Australia and England have already banned ownership of guns, but it hasn't made their countries any safer.
...
In England -- 1999-2000, street crime in London rose 32%.

The increase in street crime in London/the UK in general is can be attributed to the rising ownership of mobile phones, iPods and other valuable electronic items that are now on most people's person when they are on the street.

As a British citizen who keeps an eye on the news, most of the serious street crime is knife, not gun, related. Nearly double the number of fatalities in street crime were knife rather than gun-related. Knives are seen as far more glamorous than guns; I imagine this is due to restrictions on gun ownership in the UK, and although more could be done to prevent knife crime, I think it's safe to say that it's easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun than a knife due to the fact that a knife can only be used to wound more than one person when the assailant is in close proximity to them, whereas guns can injure many people from a distance and up close - the potential for a massacre is easier with a gun, which is what I think Wild At Heart was getting at about Columbine.

Sources: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/YPandStreetCrime.pdf, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3640626.ece

Well, i think that most crimes are knife-related, because there are stricter gun laws right? I mean, I'm not saying people would just stop killing if you take away their guns, I'm just saying that this way the number of victims would be drastically reduced.

wild at heart:

MAD CUNT:

James McAvoy.:

Okay, I hate to break your bubble, but countries who have banned firearms have a higher crime rate than the United States. Australia and England have already banned ownership of guns, but it hasn't made their countries any safer.
...
In England -- 1999-2000, street crime in London rose 32%.

The increase in street crime in London/the UK in general is can be attributed to the rising ownership of mobile phones, iPods and other valuable electronic items that are now on most people's person when they are on the street.

As a British citizen who keeps an eye on the news, most of the serious street crime is knife, not gun, related. Nearly double the number of fatalities in street crime were knife rather than gun-related. Knives are seen as far more glamorous than guns; I imagine this is due to restrictions on gun ownership in the UK, and although more could be done to prevent knife crime, I think it's safe to say that it's easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun than a knife due to the fact that a knife can only be used to wound more than one person when the assailant is in close proximity to them, whereas guns can injure many people from a distance and up close - the potential for a massacre is easier with a gun, which is what I think Wild At Heart was getting at about Columbine.

Sources: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/YPandStreetCrime.pdf, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3640626.ece

Well, i think that most crimes are knife-related, because there are stricter gun laws right? I mean, I'm not saying people would just stop killing if you take away their guns, I'm just saying that this way the number of victims would be drastically reduced.

Yes, precisely, that's what I meant.

Interesting debate

wild at heart:

First of all, your chart clearly n obviously shows that the crime rate with guns is almost DOUBLE than the one with other weapons. Ring a bell?
Also knives or the other things you have stated are not as dangerous as guns, which are easier to use (by anyone) and definitely more lethal. Knives, chainsaws etc. have other main purposes, such as cutting salad or trees, their main purpose is not KILLING, as it is with pistols. Moreover, you cannot base your statements on horror movies, this is not tv it's real life. I mean how many people are killed with a chainsaw and how many are killed with a gun?

2. The things that I would change and I think it is the main purpose of this topic, make more restrictive laws of obtaining a gun obviously, I mean the fewer people who get them the lower the risk of actually using them.

3. Okay so what is this magic place? Children can't reach it, but in case of a robbery you can just pull it out. Right...
Also the cases of such crimes, compared to the population of a country are extremely rare. Personally, I have never even come across such notions except for movies. Again, if the laws on guns would be stricter, the number of such crimes would drop as well. I'm sure most robbers are not psycho sociopathic murderers, but just desperate people who happened to get their hands on a gun. That is, you cannot trust human nature, so just giving out guns to everyone would not help protect families, quite the opposite.
I don't have a gun, no one I know has a gun, few people in my country have guns therefore I feel safe.
Maybe some people should consider properly securing their house, rather than buying weapons. Again, we live in a civilised society, not every man for himself land.

And I don't find the information you have provided in any way valid or reliable. I mean it's just an apparently anti conservative manifesto with the american flag on the cover. It doesn't show the actual figures or statistics of the total crimes in these countries compared to each other and the usa. The number might have risen but it does not lead to any conclusion. Is it higher than in countries where it's easier to obtain such weapons or not?
Who is this guy who wrote? Where did he get his info?
Moreover, in your list (top 10 most violent countries) there are mostly countries at war, anarchies etc. I don't see any developed countries. when I meant USA has a high crime rate I meant comapared to other similar countries such as UK, France, Italy etc.

1.) The fact still remains that crimes committed with ALL weapons, which is what should ultimately matter, is decreasing.

And of course I'm not basing horror movies on real life. However, the fact also still remains that all weapons are dangerous, no matter what they are.

And since when was stabbing someone easier than shooting them? Not important but I'm jw.

2.) There it is. That's exactly what should be done, not banning them, but changing laws. y/y?

3.) Perhaps in a safe? Perhaps in a place that is only accessed with a key? And as any responsible parent would, you would hide the key in a place where children can't reach? Hiding a gun in your house is easier than you make it sound, and I can't speak for all parents/households because all parents/households are different

4.) That's very good that you feel safe in your country, but unfortunately that's not the case in ours

5.) The book is actually Anti-Liberal. As you can see the title is, quite clearly, "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies." (No offense to any Liberals out there.) And the man who wrote the book cites his sources with footnotes at the back of his book, but I'm too tired to go and dig the book out of our bookshelf right now (will get back to you on those sources probably tomorrow.)

And, it actually does lead to a conclusion, which is -- banning guns will not make your country any safer. Like I said before (I think I mentioned this) robbers are going to find a way to rob. Killers are going to find a way to kill. Criminals are going to find a way to commit crimes, and it is up to us to protect our homes, our families, and our lives in those instances. If you're personally against guns, great! You don't have to get one! But you don't have to ruin the opportunity of owning one for everybody else in America.

Also, the list is not titled "Top 10 Most Violent Nations at War". It's Most Violent nations in general. If we were a violent nation, we'd be there, which we're not. That's a g o o d thing.

James McAvoy.:

1.) The fact still remains that crimes committed with ALL weapons, which is what should ultimately matter, is decreasing.

And of course I'm not basing horror movies on real life. However, the fact also still remains that all weapons are dangerous, no matter what they are.

And since when was stabbing someone easier than shooting them? Not important but I'm jw.

2.) There it is. That's exactly what should be done, not banning them, but changing laws. y/y?

3.) Perhaps in a safe? Perhaps in a place that is only accessed with a key? And as any responsible parent would, you would hide the key in a place where children can't reach? Hiding a gun in your house is easier than you make it sound, and I can't speak for all parents/households because all parents/households are different

4.) That's very good that you feel safe in your country, but unfortunately that's not the case in ours

5.) The book is actually Anti-Liberal. As you can see the title is, quite clearly, "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies." (No offense to any Liberals out there.) And the man who wrote the book cites his sources with footnotes at the back of his book, but I'm too tired to go and dig the book out of our bookshelf right now (will get back to you on those sources probably tomorrow.)

And, it actually does lead to a conclusion, which is -- banning guns will not make your country any safer. Like I said before (I think I mentioned this) robbers are going to find a way to rob. Killers are going to find a way to kill. Criminals are going to find a way to commit crimes, and it is up to us to protect our homes, our families, and our lives in those instances. If you're personally against guns, great! You don't have to get one! But you don't have to ruin the opportunity of owning one for everybody else in America.

Also, the list is not titled "Top 10 Most Violent Nations at War". It's Most Violent nations in general. If we were a violent nation, we'd be there, which we're not. That's a g o o d thing.

1. By reducing the number of weapons, especially lethal ones, should and would reduce the total number of crimes. As in.. directly proportional?
I'm actually saying guns are easier to use and more accessible to the majority of people. It would be easier for example for me to shoot someone than stab them etc. Therefore, maybe I shouldn't get a gun? Because most likely in this way I wouldn't accidentaly (or even on purpose) kill anyone.

2. Yes, gradually changing laws. I mean in countries where people are used to having a gun and it's easier for them to obtain them, you can't just simply ban them, due to people's reactions. By constantly increasing standards and making guns harder to obtain it would eventually lead to a safer world and finally the complete ban of fire weapons. If gun laws become more strict, this would probably enable only people who are in a desperate need of a gun, feel their life is particularly in danger to go through all the trouble to obtain them.

3. I understand you can lock guns in a safe, hide the key etc. But this would mean, that when your house is robbed or you are under a gun threat by a thief you will not be able to reach it in time to protect yourself.

4. I get that, what I'm saying is that maybe gun regulations have something to do with it. I think that the majority of people can't be trusted with guns, due to various factors such as social groups, temper/personality etc.

5. It doesn't matter what the book is against or whatever, the point is that the apparent strong opinions of the writer (against a political group) make its content rather subjective.
It just shows a difference in crime rate, it doesn't show or compare the crime rate when that particular nation had guns and when they decided to change laws/ban whatever. Even though it increased by a small percentage, it's probably still lower than when they did have guns.
What I'm trying to say is that banning guns will decrease crime rates, thus gradually making a country become safer, by discouraging people to own and use fire weapons. Based on what I see on the news everyday, not just here but around the world, most killers and robbers are not psycho-sociopathic freaks, they are normal people in desperate situations. Lovers cheated on, poor people, hate etc. If these people can't easily get their hands on a gun, they would channel their issues in a different way or as you might suggest (but much less likely) - use a knife, bat etc. However these types of weapons are not lethal, built to kill, like guns are. No one will go on a killing spree with a kitchen knife.
Also, there are many ways of protecting your house without shooting/killing anyone.

1. So i should be carrying a gun with me all the time? Again, if there are fewer guns, fewer people will have them and therefore the time may never come. Also, as i am not handicapped/ paralysed etc. I'm sure i will find a way. I don't know where this constant threat comes from or why you have the need to defend yourself constantly, bc in modern civilised society it is rarely the case that you have to.

2. If you don't want to murder anyone then don't get a gun. Also hunting is no longer necessary. If laws are stricter, only people who actually are in danger can obtain them from protection, not just random people off the street.

3. You can hide/ wait for the police. If you have a security system then your life is pretty much safe, unless someone really wants to kill you, in which case running in the bedroom to reach for the gun is pretty pointless.

4. Then how do you explain all the crimes?

5. I'm sorry maybe you don't understand the facts you have stated. It says the crime rate rose by x%, not that it's higher than usa or that it's higher when they used to have guns.
And then i guess every murder, every child killed accidentaly, every killing spree including kids shot in columbine, all parents killed by their children etc. Are a great victory for the usa and the constitution and simply represent your right to freedom.

So... Unless you are in a gang, you don't have a desperate need to constantly defend yourself.
Lol no, firearms are not built to kill, just built to shoot at stuff okk... What i'm saying is you don't need them in everyday life, as with knives to cut food/ meat or bats to hit a baseball etc.
Again, unless you're ina gang or the mob, probably nobody wants to kill you, therefore you don't need a gun. Exactly how many times has your life or your house been under threat? This is civilised society not the jungle.

Also you may want to look at these. Guns are just for protection right?


School shootings since 1996
This document details children and adults killed in shcool shootings since 1996.

Read this one especially:

Article on the risks of keeping a gun in the home
Posted on Thu, 2011-04-28 11:43
Focusing on the US, this article, written by David Hemenway and published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, summarises and compares scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. It concludes that for the majority of Americans, the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit.

According to the author, "The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes".

- Also please take a look at the tables comparing the gun crime/violence compared to non-gun.


Voices of survivors: the different faces of gun violence
Posted on Mon, 2011-05-16 15:22
This publication, written by IANSA woman Laura Lyddon, features 16 testimonies acquired by IANSA of women survivors of gun violence from a number of different countries. The violence occurs in various contexts and situations but the one common denominator in all of these stories is the misuse of guns. The choice of the countries featured is based on responses from IANSA women, and it is striking to see the similarities that exist even though the countries in which the armed violence occurs may be ‘worlds apart’.

wild at heart:

1. So i should be carrying a gun with me all the time? Again, if there are fewer guns, fewer people will have them and therefore the time may never come. Also, as i am not handicapped/ paralysed etc. I'm sure i will find a way. I don't know where this constant threat comes from or why you have the need to defend yourself constantly, bc in modern civilised society it is rarely the case that you have to.

2. If you don't want to murder anyone then don't get a gun. Also hunting is no longer necessary. If laws are stricter, only people who actually are in danger can obtain them from protection, not just random people off the street.

3. You can hide/ wait for the police. If you have a security system then your life is pretty much safe, unless someone really wants to kill you, in which case running in the bedroom to reach for the gun is pretty pointless.

4. Then how do you explain all the crimes?

5. I'm sorry maybe you don't understand the facts you have stated. It says the crime rate rose by x%, not that it's higher than usa or that it's higher when they used to have guns.
And then i guess every murder, every child killed accidentaly, every killing spree including kids shot in columbine, all parents killed by their children etc. Are a great victory for the usa and the constitution and simply represent your right to freedom.

So... Unless you are in a gang, you don't have a desperate need to constantly defend yourself.
Lol no, firearms are not built to kill, just built to shoot at stuff okk... What i'm saying is you don't need them in everyday life, as with knives to cut food/ meat or bats to hit a baseball etc.
Again, unless you're ina gang or the mob, probably nobody wants to kill you, therefore you don't need a gun. Exactly how many times has your life or your house been under threat? This is civilised society not the jungle.

1.) There are other ways to protect yourself when you're out and about and somebody happens to mug you. I never said you need to carry a gun at all times to be safe. And this society isn't as civilized as everybody wants to believe.

2.) If you don't want protection, don't get a gun. Hunting is the most effective and only means of controlling the white tail deer population. It is, actually, necessary. Also deer = food.

3.) Americans don't run and hide. If we want a gun to protect ourselves, we're going to. We're going to fight for our lives, we're not going to sit in a fetal position and wait for the police. If you have time to get a phone, you have time to get a gun.

4.) Because there's always going to be people that want to kill. That's going to happen everywhere, no matter where you are. There are gangs. There are arguments. There are killers. There's hate. There's going to be crime, all the time, with or without guns.

5.) Those people are innocent victims of criminals. That has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution is granting the right to Bear Arms to those who want to protect themselves. They're not saying, "Oh, go grab a gun and go kill people, it's okay, we'll let you go." No. That's what the Seventh Amendment is for.
The fact still remains that it rose, y/y?
And since when was crime supposed to represent America?

6.) And actually, you do.
Our house has been broken into before. Because of our alarm, our house and our lives weren't put in Jeopardy. But there will be people without alarms, and by what means will they protect themselves?
And there will be people that want to rob places -- there are robberies all the time -- but if you happen to walk in on a robbery, or they find you, they're going to want to kill you -- they won't want a witness, or they'll want an easy robbery. Guns, in that case, WILL protect you.

wild at heart:

Also you may want to look at these. Guns are just for protection right?


School shootings since 1996
This document details children and adults killed in shcool shootings since 1996.

Read this one especially:

Article on the risks of keeping a gun in the home
Posted on Thu, 2011-04-28 11:43
Focusing on the US, this article, written by David Hemenway and published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, summarises and compares scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. It concludes that for the majority of Americans, the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit.

According to the author, "The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes".

- Also please take a look at the tables comparing the gun crime/violence compared to non-gun.


Voices of survivors: the different faces of gun violence
Posted on Mon, 2011-05-16 15:22
This publication, written by IANSA woman Laura Lyddon, features 16 testimonies acquired by IANSA of women survivors of gun violence from a number of different countries. The violence occurs in various contexts and situations but the one common denominator in all of these stories is the misuse of guns. The choice of the countries featured is based on responses from IANSA women, and it is striking to see the similarities that exist even though the countries in which the armed violence occurs may be ‘worlds apart’.

1.) These people are victims of criminals that are very messed up in the head. The argument may be presented that if there was no gun, there would be no crime. This is not true. Like I said, a lot of times, people. Will find. A Way. To act out. What do terrorists do, if they don't have a gun? They build Molotov Cocktails. They build bombs. In most cases, bombs are more dangerous than guns.

2.) This is biased information. This is provided by a group that wants to ban guns.
When criminals break in, they're not looking for your gun. That would take them way longer than, say, picking up a few big, expensive items on their way in. Chances are they've already got their own.
Is it also not fair to blame lack of safety on suicides? If a parent leaves a gun in a place where a kid can find it, and they happen to be suicidal, they should've been more careful. I also mentioned before, that if you change the means of how you acquire guns, you should do a background check -- like I said, those tendencies can run in the family. We should regulate laws, not BAN guns altogether. Plus, didn't you say yourself you feel safe in your country? Then why debate our laws in America?

3.) Again, these are all innocent victims of screwed up people. It is not the gun's fault. I cannot stress this enough. The gun did NOT get up and SHOOT itself. The PEOPLE need to be incarcerated, and I'm pretty sure they were. The people need to be fixed, not the laws. Not the gun.
I cannot stand the argument that guns need to banned solely based on what a person does with it. This is the same as blaming a pencil for a mistake. The person made the mistake. Not the pencil. Not the gun.

I'm not even going to quote the first one because you are repeating yourself. Read my previous answers to that I guess.
Also you are hunting for survival? Your profile says Ohio.
Moreover, your house has been broken into but you were basically saved (safe&protected) by your alarm. My exact point, wouldn't you rather everyone had an alarm in their house/apartment instead of a gun?

The links I have posted are resources- facts on which this organisation bases the statements on. It is not part of their manifesto. You can sure look there are pretty interesting things their, true facts. Therefore none of this information is biased.
I'm not saying if there were no guns there would be no crime, I'm saying there would be perhaps significantly less crime. Do you have any graphs comparing the number of crimes by gun compared to those by molotov cocktails? I'm thinking you don't encounter the second one as often, using my common sense of course.
Again, the information is obviously not biased and at this point you are basically arguing with the writers of an article who based their statements on statistics, science etc.
Moreover, I think that these actual gun victims have more of a point or say in this than me you or anyone else. They have experienced the full power of guns and had their lives on the edge.
Yes, I completely agree it is not the guns fault, it is the person's fault, that is why people shouldn't be given guns. Fire weapons are far more dangerous and common than any other weapon, they cause most victims. And everyone needs to stop with the pencil allegory, pencils don't kill people.

Imho guns are created to kill. That's why people buy them, whether to kill animals or humans. Guns are never going to be banned because they have legit uses, but some will always find their way into the wrong hands.

Also, if we ban guns, how are the army people going to kill each other? Stones?

Lol A+

wild at heart:

I'm not even going to quote the first one because you are repeating yourself. Read my previous answers to that I guess.
Also you are hunting for survival? Your profile says Ohio.
Moreover, your house has been broken into but you were basically saved (safe&protected) by your alarm. My exact point, wouldn't you rather everyone had an alarm in their house/apartment instead of a gun?

The links I have posted are resources- facts on which this organisation bases the statements on. It is not part of their manifesto. You can sure look there are pretty interesting things their, true facts. Therefore none of this information is biased.
I'm not saying if there were no guns there would be no crime, I'm saying there would be perhaps significantly less crime. Do you have any graphs comparing the number of crimes by gun compared to those by molotov cocktails? I'm thinking you don't encounter the second one as often, using my common sense of course.
Again, the information is obviously not biased and at this point you are basically arguing with the writers of an article who based their statements on statistics, science etc.
Moreover, I think that these actual gun victims have more of a point or say in this than me you or anyone else. They have experienced the full power of guns and had their lives on the edge.
Yes, I completely agree it is not the guns fault, it is the person's fault, that is why people shouldn't be given guns. Fire weapons are far more dangerous and common than any other weapon, they cause most victims. And everyone needs to stop with the pencil allegory, pencils don't kill people.

Err, no, I don't hunt for survival. Hunting's the only way to keep the population in check.
And what about the people that don't have alarms/can't afford them?
lol no. My entire argument was that guns aren't going to decrease crime. Read this whole entire article. That's all I'm saying on that matter.
And actually, have you seen The Dark Knight? lolol nerds strike again

Derpaherp:

Imho guns are created to kill. That's why people buy them, whether to kill animals or humans. Guns are never going to be banned because they have legit uses, but some will always find their way into the wrong hands.

Also, if we ban guns, how are the army people going to kill each other? Stones?

omg guns aren't created to kill. The actual use of a gun is to fire a projectile at wherever the user decides to shoot it, it just so happens that guns can be used to kill humans.

And, 80% of that statement actually backs up my argument. Guns will never be banned. I'm just saying that banning guns, or further regulating them, isn't going to decrease crime.

Dave Grohl.:

Derpaherp:

Imho guns are created to kill. That's why people buy them, whether to kill animals or humans. Guns are never going to be banned because they have legit uses, but some will always find their way into the wrong hands.

Also, if we ban guns, how are the army people going to kill each other? Stones?

omg guns aren't created to kill. The actual use of a gun is to fire a projectile at wherever the user decides to shoot it, it just so happens that guns can be used to kill humans.

And, 80% of that statement actually backs up my argument. Guns will never be banned. I'm just saying that banning guns, or further regulating them, isn't going to decrease crime.

what kind of logic is that?
By some weird chance, this projectile-shooting apparatus just happens to also kill humans and animals, among its many other uses?

When whoever invented the gun was thinking about it and making it, don't you think they were thinking "this can be used to wound or kill living things?"
i mean as pretty as they are just lying around or shooting cans with, wounding, threatening or killing is their practical use.