The great gun-control debate

[ATrain]

Just to toss some numbers out there:

Overall, homicides are committed primarily by someone known to the victim. In 1998, of the 431 homicides solved by the police, 45% of victims were killed by an acquaintance, 40% by a family member and 15% by a stranger.
The Daily, Thursday, October 7, 1999. Homicide statistics


And what are the odds of being murdered anyway? 40% higher of a chance is still slim!

That doesn't do much to prove your argument in favour of gun ownership? If there are statistics that say that guns in the home cause more violence, be it by family member or outside individual, isn't that enough for us to take them out of homes?

[meatw4d]

...Guns are just the most convenient way of killing somebody. I'm sure they'd turn to the kitchen knives if they didn't have a handy firearm around. And I dunno about you, but I'd rather take a cap to the head than a knife... anywhere.

Think about it. There are only so many restrictions you can put on weapons before it stops doing any good. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

Read about how many crimes in medieval England were punishable by death. It didn't do shit for stopping crime.

[ATrain]

...Guns are just the most convenient way of killing somebody. I'm sure they'd turn to the kitchen knives if they didn't have a handy firearm around. And I dunno about you, but I'd rather take a cap to the head than a knife... anywhere.

Think about it. There are only so many restrictions you can put on weapons before it stops doing any good. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

Read about how many crimes in medieval England were punishable by death. It didn't do shit for stopping crime.

I think what the statistics show is that guns breed more violence in general. So they may turn to knives next but that level of violence would probably be lower than what exists now. And it would probably be harder for someone to kill 15 people in a spree with a knife. Hopefully :wtf:

As for the restrictions I think Great Britain has provided a working example of who extreme gun restrictions can work and can lower homicides.

[mfqr]

Yeah, he might have. But current gun laws made it easier for him to get a hold of those guns. Anyway we can make it more difficult for shooting sprees like that to happen is fine by me.

I think the system in place in the UK clearly show that taking guns away can work.

Then again, I've heard that in the UK you see kids walking around with samurai swords and shit. LIP has told some stories of that. And don't even say that samurai swords can't be as lethal.

You take one type of weapon away, they use another, or find a way to illegally get the banned ones!

Then those people can be a huge threat to the general public.

Even though I am not a big believer in this huge "terrorist" threat, I will use it as an argument, since most people believe it to be true. What would you do to defend yourself against terrorists?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

What about the UK? Haven't they proven that taking guns away from the general public can drastically reduce firearm related deaths?

I'm not sure what the rates are. I usually hear mixed reports, some nations with total gun control having lower gun-death rates, some having higher. But I would rather look at the overal murder rate. I often here gun-death numbers touted as though if guns weren't available, all 50,000 people that were killed with guns wouldn't have been murdered. But I'm sure many of those murders would have been carried out by other means if the guns weren't available. How many? Unfortunately, that's impossible to find out.

[Nailhead]

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

Or maybe you should ask, would Virginia Tech have happened if the guy knew every teacher and student was armed just as much as he was? Of course not, kids that go on school shootings do so for attention and they know it will be the only time in their life they will be more powerful than their peers.

If everybody owned a gun, everybody would be on a level playing field with the criminals, and the criminals would second think going rambo if they knew others were packing heat as well.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, all could have been prevented if we didn't have such strict gun laws.

[mfqr]

Don't you think that if the VA Tech shooter didn't have access to guns that he just may have found another way to murder people?

[ATrain]

Or maybe you should ask, would Virginia Tech have happened if the guy knew every teacher and student was armed just as much as he was? Of course not, kids that go on school shootings do so for attention and they know it will be the only time in their life they will be more powerful than their peers.

If everybody owned a gun, everybody would be on a level playing field with the criminals, and the criminals would second think going rambo if they knew others were packing heat as well.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, all could have been prevented if we didn't have such strict gun laws.

I think that is downright insane. Think of the murder rates America has when maybe say 80 million people have guns. If everybody has a gun more and more people would turn to violence to solve their disputes. Virginia Tech and Columbine happened BECAUSE of easy access to guns, not because not enough people have them.

Don't you think that if the VA Tech shooter didn't have access to guns that he just may have found another way to murder people?

Maybe, but I'd rather force him to try and find another way then just picking up everything he needs at a corner gun store. Anything we can do to limit incidents like those should be done. It seems to me like the argument has become, they'll probably find another way if they can't use guns so why bother, but all these incidents so far use guns. We can worry about the samurai sword rampages later...

I guess I see it like this. Guns breed violence. Why not do everything we can to limit that violence?

[002]

good use banning will have.....it'll just become a smuggled commodity $$$ just like everything else illegal and hidable


dogs cant smell clean guns

[Nailhead]

I think that is downright insane. Think of the murder rates America has when maybe say 80 million people have guns. If everybody has a gun more and more people would turn to violence to solve their disputes. Virginia Tech and Columbine happened BECAUSE of easy access to guns, not because not enough people have them.

I think it is insane to try banning guns which only prevents access to the responsible ones, but does little to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Those that want it, will always get it if the desire is great enough. You shouldn't even be suggesting a ban on every gun because that is just impossible, criminals will always find away around the law, and in the end the only people you are really restricting access to are the law abiding citizens, the very people that are the most responsible to be owning guns.

I also never said people should resort to violence to solve their problems, murder would still be illegal, but if you are protecting yourself from a criminal you should be legally allowed to defend yourself and your family.

I live in California which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. But despite the laws, a lot of people still have guns that aren't registered. It seems that most of the people that own guns here in California are the people that shouldn't be, and the responsible ones that should own them, don't because they believe all the anti-gun bullshit about how guns cause crime. The reality is that gun laws hurt citizens from being able to defend themselves. We need less gun control laws and put some god damn fear into these coward criminals that are so quick to pull a gun!