Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Averagesupernova]

e2aow does a "wide open space" necessitate the use of a gun?

Actually I would prefer to hear your opinion on this. Necessitate is not the word I would choose. I think you mean "permit" correct?

Sure, there would be many places a ban would not be enforced -- like there are many places were people do illegal things on a regular basis -- however, this doesn't mean that a ban should not be put in place. Which amongst other things would cut down on the availability of a deadly weapon from the highstreet.

Things are illegal because someone decided that they should be. If it harms no one in a particular locality to be doing something illegal then it is likely that it will be permitted. If it harmed no one in EVERY locality the law would not have been passed to make it illegal in the first place. Sorry, I'm not willing to accept the idea that I shouldn't own a gun since it could be stolen from me by some bad people and used to do some bad things. It's one of the things that make me who I am and most other people in the USA who they are.

 

[Averagesupernova]

it seems more people dislike guns,and the shooter in this case maybe is common in daily life .i think such things hardly happen in China.

How do you figure more people dislike guns? Are you reading the poll correctly?

 

[Anttech]

Things are illegal because someone decided that they should be. If it harms no one in a particular locality to be doing something illegal then it is likely that it will be permitted. If it harmed no one in EVERY locality the law would not have been passed to make it illegal in the first place.

Well if that was true, drugs would be legal everywhere, but they are not. Laws arent passed for these reasons, they are passed to protect society...

 

[enricfemi]

How do you figure more people dislike guns? Are you reading the poll correctly?

the poll shows more people think the ownership of guns should be prohibited.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Well if that was true, drugs would be legal everywhere, but they are not. Laws arent passed for these reasons, they are passed to protect society...

That is not even close to a fair comparison. The use of guns is not addictive. The use of a gun does not alter your decision making capability. Sure laws are passed in order to protect society but if the people don't believe society needs protecting against something specific then that specific law will not be passed. The bill won't even be introduced.

 

[Averagesupernova]

the poll shows more people think the ownership of guns should be prohibited.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, check it again.

 

[Art]

the poll shows more people think the ownership of guns should be prohibited.

Look again - it doesn't.

 

[Art]

The use of a gun does not alter your decision making capability..

It certainly affects your decision making. If some 6' 6" thug thumped you and you had no gun you'd be inclined to let it go whereas if you were carrying a gun your preferred option might be different.

As someone once said 'God didn't make all men equal the Colt 45 did that.'

 

[Cyrus]

Guys, this isn't the thread for history lessons.

 

[Cyrus]

Of course it should be prohibited.

I'd point to the "Interesting Gun Safety Lesson" thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131578

and the "Man tries to rob woman in wheel chair!" thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131334

and the "Canadian College Shootings" thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=132146

and the locked thread on the recent tragedy: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165992

for my opinions.

Ok, so you have one example from Canada, not the US. Another example you have is of where an old lady used a gun to protect herself (and goes agasint your logic). And you have two more sensational special cases. So, what does that have to do with regular responsible ownership by the average everyday citizen who isint running around shooting everybody?

 

[Anttech]

Ok, so you have one example from Canada, not the US. Another example you have is of where an old lady used a gun to protect herself (and goes agasint your logic). And you have two more sensational special cases. So, what does that have to do with regular responsible ownership by the average everyday citizen who isint running around shooting everybody?

Ignoring your hyperbole the point is that yes if you are responsible fine, but, the percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public. Its this exact reason why they are banned in most countries. Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening). Individualism is fine as long as it doesn't effect society in a negative way, at that point it just becomes selfish. Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

 

[Evo]

It would be interesting to try and correlate the rates of firearm vs other means of homocide and suicide with gunownership, but I don't have time to do that now.

See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1306076&postcount=307

The FBI link has the full table.

 

[drankin]

More law-abiding citizens carrying guns in the US would mean less crime. Less mass murders, less homicides, and less robberies.

Several career criminals were interviewed in some prison in California (I'll dig up the actual article later if anyone is interested). They were asked what was their biggest concern when robbing a home. The majority of them said that they were concerned that the owner was armed and that if they knew that the occupant(s) is/are armed, they would much not attempt that robbery. Not worth the hassle or risk. There were other rather interesting revelations about how much of a deterant that the knowledge that their potential victims were armed was.

Criminals have very little problem getting guns. Luckily, they are valued enough that many of your more desperate drug addicts will trade theirs in for drugs rendering them unarmed.

 

[Art]

One common reason put forward in defence of gun ownership is defence against crime yet is shooting the perp really a valid response to common crime?

A quick look at the numbers show if this form of self-defence actually became the norm America would quickly become de-populated. Staving off 'assaults against the person' alone would result in the possibility of 1,500,000 'justifiable' homicides per year. Add in shooting burglars and trespassers and millions more would die so as a reasonable policy to protect oneself and one's property from crime it really doesn't pass muster.

 

[Anttech]

More law-abiding citizens carrying guns in the US would mean less crime. Less mass murders, less homicides, and less robberies.

And of course the case example of this is...please please please don't say the swiss

 

[daveb]

Uhh.. the right to use hard drugs was never mentioned in the constitution..

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Many have argued (Some successfully, some not) that this clause means that even though a right is not spelled out as being a right, it is still a right.

 

[drankin]

One common reason put forward in defence of gun ownership is defence against crime yet is shooting the perp really a valid response to common crime?

A quick look at the numbers show if this form of self-defence actually became the norm America would quickly become de-populated. Staving off 'assaults against the person' alone would result in the possibility of 1,500,000 'justifiable' homicides per year. Add in shooting burglars and trespassers and millions more would die so as a reasonable policy to protect oneself and one's property from crime it really doesn't pass muster.

Most incidents where a citizen has had to pull his weapon in self-defense occur without a shot being fired. Looking at the wrong end of a gun being held by someone who fears for their life tends to deescalate a potential assault, rape, or robbery. But understand that in those situations the crime victim has the right to pull the trigger. Most of us are not interested in killing someone if it is not necessary. We just don't want to be assaulted, raped or robbed.

 

[Averagesupernova]

It certainly affects your decision making. If some 6' 6" thug thumped you and you had no gun you'd be inclined to let it go whereas if you were carrying a gun your preferred option might be different.

As someone once said 'God didn't make all men equal the Colt 45 did that.'

Well you got me there! I would be inclined to let it go. However, if it were in my own house and I had a good chance of a kill, I'd drop him like a bad habit. There is nothing to prevent a crook that I have disabled (for life) from taking me to court in a law suit. Unless of course if he's dead...

 

[Averagesupernova]

Just thought I'd point something out. Just the thought of someone being armed prevents robberies. The occupant of the house may not have a gun at all, but if the crook thinks so, isn't that good enough to keep him away?

 

[drankin]

A quick look at the numbers show if this form of self-defence actually became the norm America would quickly become de-populated.

Art, it is already the norm. We are increasing our population everyday.

 

[enricfemi]

Look again - it doesn't.

damn,can't understand,may be the most people click the wrong botton

 

[cristo]

The occupant of the house may not have a gun at all, but if the crook thinks so, isn't that good enough to keep him away?

That or he shoots you rather than finds out!

 

[cristo]

Art, it is already the norm.

Is it? About 4 people here have admitted to carrying a gun wherever they go.

 

[Monique]

See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1306076&postcount=307

The FBI link has the full table.

That's in the US, to get a good correlation you need to consider different countries, which is on the website from which I got my data from

 

[drankin]

Is it? About 4 people here have admitted to carrying a gun wherever they go.

Including me, right now. There are at least 4 others in my office of about 35 people right now that are carrying. They don't get robbed, raped, or assaulted and they have never had to shoot anyone. My point is, if more people exercised their right as we are, there would even fewer crimes.

 

[Anttech]

My point is, if more people exercised their right as we are, there would even fewer crimes..

I'd like to refer you to post 365! (again)

 

[drankin]

I'd like to refer you to post 365! (again)

The example would be, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns, now wouldn't it! It has to actually happen first!

I'm giving reasons why it would work!

 

[cristo]

Including me, right now. There are at least 4 others in my office of about 35 people right now that are carrying.

But that isn't "the norm"; that's a few people!

They don't get robbed, raped, or assaulted and they have never had to shoot anyone.

But that doesn't mean anything! You say that four people, who happen to carry guns, havn't run into any trouble and then extrapolate this as if to make a point that if everyone carries a gun then there will be no trouble!

My point is, if more people exercised their right as we are, there would even fewer crimes.

But this isn't necessarily true though! Even if what you say is true, and that people who carry guns do not get robbed, then this crime will certainly be displaced onto those who do not carry guns. What happens if more and more people carry guns? Well, criminals will have to take more chances, and rob someone who may have a weapon with them, which will result in more gunfights; more deaths.

Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, as people are far too set in their own opinions to change. I respect your opinion, but I don't live in your country, and thus cannot really understand the point of view of people who believe that guns are good-- there aren't that many here in the UK. But, I don't agree with your opinion. I believe that more people carrying guns implies more gun crime, but that is my opinion, which I understand that you cannot agree with.

There is no definitive answer to this question-- we'll just have to wait and see what happens really!

 

[Anttech]

No, that is a speculative answer it is not a case study. A theory is just that a theory until you start testing your theory.

The point I am making is that there is not 1 good case study showing a correlation between increasing guns in circulation decreases the crime rate.

However Moniques graphs do show us a correlation between how violent the society (in general) is and the amount of guns in circulation. Of course in certain places this will be shown not to be the case, but on the average it seems to hold true.

 

[Huckleberry]

Don't rely on your firearm to make you any safer in your home. Even a poor thief will know the home he is breaking into before entering. A house with nobody in it is the best target. If a robber knows you have firearms he might be tempted to wait until you are not home before he steals them.

For home safety, you are far better off with a security system. Be sure to lock your doors and windows when you aren't home or when sleeping. If you have a firearm and aren't home, make sure they are in a safe which is bolted down securely.

The gun only works if you are there to use it. If an armed robber breaks into a house with someone home then you are in a dangerous situation. He probably intends to kill you if he breaks in, is armed and knows you are home. Unless you walk around your house with your firearm loaded and within easy reach you will probably be taken off-guard. This might not be such a good idea in a home where young children or their friends are present.

 

[out of whack]

damn,can't understand,may be the most people click the wrong botton

You're not the first to make this mistake, the implicit double negative "yes, it should not be allowed" and "not, it should not be not allowed" strikes again!

I don't think it matters, for several reasons. First, figures are already biased by the specific nature of this group so you could not generalize anyway. Second, non-American are voting on American matters, which is allowed since it was not restricted in the OP, but still creates a different bias. Third and most importantly, polls on this forum are often just a way to stimulate debate, not to obtain reliable figures. And this is an excellent debate IMO. I admit that many posts have served to sway my own prior opinion from one extreme to a middle position. I am now sitting on the fence. Keep talking!

 

[Anttech]

Right, so can we say then:

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.
-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).
-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation
-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Don't rely on your firearm to make you any safer in your home. Even a poor thief will know the home he is breaking into before entering. A house with nobody in it is the best target. If a robber knows you have firearms he might be tempted to wait until you are not home before he steals them.

I wouldn't say that even the poorest of theives know anything about the home they are breaking into. Some of the drug addicts we have running around these days (which are the most dangerous of criminals) will do little research before picking a house. No one has said that owning a gun is like living in a fortress.

For home safety, you are far better off with a security system. Be sure to lock your doors and windows when you aren't home or when sleeping. If you have a firearm and aren't home, make sure they are in a safe which is bolted down securely.

I have a security system. I have locks on doors and windows which I use. Do you think being being pro-gun means we are just inviting trouble to come into our homes? Is the image really that skewed? BTW, a security system is worthless when phone wires are cut. Oh, don't tell me to get wireless, the service where I live is horrible.

The gun only works if you are there to use it. If an armed robber breaks into a house with someone home then you are in a dangerous situation. He probably intends to kill you if he breaks in, is armed and knows you are home. Unless you walk around your house with your firearm loaded and within easy reach you will probably be taken off-guard. This might not be such a good idea in a home where young children or their friends are present.

I would say most of the time I am going to know if someone is even walking around the outside of my house since I have dogs. I will know before the crook gets in.

 

[Averagesupernova]

That or he shoots you rather than finds out!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes no sense. I'm serious, I don't understand the reply at all.

 

[Averagesupernova]

damn,can't understand,may be the most people click the wrong botton

Now this is funny. You feel so strongly about it that you are thinking up reasons to make the poll look the way you would like it?

 

[cristo]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes no sense. I'm serious, I don't understand the reply at all.

My point was that if the ownership of guns is outlawed for law-abiding citizens, then a criminal breaking into a house has no reason to assume that the householder has a gun. A criminal breaking into a house when it is legal for the homeowner to have a gun will have to assume that the homeowner does indeed own one, and carries it with him. I propose that in the former case, you are less likely to be shot than in the latter case.

Besides, if a criminal breaks into your house and wants to shoot you, you're pretty much done for anyway! (Unless, of course, you sit at the top of your stairs with the gun trained on the door all day, on the off chance that someone will break in! )

 

[Averagesupernova]

My point was that if the ownership of guns is outlawed for law-abiding citizens, then a criminal breaking into a house has no reason to assume that the householder has a gun. A criminal breaking into a house when it is legal for the homeowner to have a gun will have to assume that the homeowner does indeed own one, and carries it with him. I propose that in the former case, you are less likely to be shot than in the latter case.

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

Besides, if a criminal breaks into your house and wants to shoot you, you're pretty much done for anyway! (Unless, of course, you sit at the top of your stairs with the gun trained on the door all day, on the off chance that someone will break in! )

Read my previous posts. It's quite likely I'd know if someone were even walking around the outside. Can you explain why you think someone would go to the trouble of breaking in my house with the sole intention of shooting me? Is this what happens in England? You can't compare this with Joe. It wouldn't be in the same ball park as a type of crime. Even if that were the case, I'm still better off with a gun than without. Someone has already pointed out the odds of 1,000,000:1 being better than 1,000,000:0.

 

[Anttech]

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I haven't ever seen any data to back that up.

 

[Cyrus]

Ignoring your hyperbole the point is that yes if you are responsible fine, but, the percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public. Its this exact reason why they are banned in most countries. Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening). Individualism is fine as long as it doesn't effect society in a negative way, at that point it just becomes selfish. Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

Stop making up figures out your you know what. What proof do you have that says:

"percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public."

Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening).

Again, I don't care what other countries do about their guns. But in my country this is the reason for allowing citizens to have guns. So your point is NOT RELEVANT.

Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

What a load of bull. Stop pawning off blame on others. Now its "selfish" for people to be responsible gun owners.


Honestly, you don't live in the United States, so stop complaining about it. I don't sit here and lecture you on having guns in the UK. You just complain for the sake of hearing your own voice.

 

[edward]

Without proper training in the handling of fire arms, family members are more at risk than the bad guys.

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs2.php

Below are some troubling stats on firearms:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

The best weapon for home protection is actually not a hand gun, it is a shot gun with an 18 inch barrel.

 

[cristo]

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

I'm not asking you to buy it-- it's my opinion, and you're entitled to you opinion!

However, answer me this hypothetical situation. Suppose every household owns a gun; now what? Will crime stop? Will criminals stop stealing from the average citizen? Or.. will the number of deaths increase because every citizen owns a gun?

Read my previous posts. It's quite likely I'd know if someone were even walking around the outside. Can you explain why you think someone would go to the trouble of breaking in my house with the sole intention of shooting me? Is this what happens in England?

Not with the sole intention of shooting you, but willing to shoot you if he sees you, regardless of whether there is a chance of you carrying a gun or not (to dispose of the witnesses, or whatever other reason there may be).

You can't compare this with Joe. It wouldn't be in the same ball park as a type of crime. Even if that were the case, I'm still better off with a gun than without. Someone has already pointed out the odds of 1,000,000:1 being better than 1,000,000:0.

And I've answered this point before. I'm not really prepared to waste my time again.

If you think that all citizens carrying around weapons wherever they go is a recipe for a safe nation, then good luck to you, and to your country.

 

[Anttech]

"percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public."

Ohh sorry don't you understand the word "seems", and the use of the word?

Again, I don't care what other countries do about their guns. But in my country this is the reason for allowing citizens to have guns. So your point is NOT RELEVANT.

Good point, I see where you are going with this, ignoring the knee jerk emotion in your post, it does shows that the decision to allow guns isn't based on anything, but the fact people want them, and don't really give a **** about the social effect of having them. Which is what I have been saying.

What a load of bull. Stop pawning off blame on others. Now its "selfish" for people to be responsible gun owners.

pawning off blame, are you saying its my fault you have guns?

Honestly, you don't live in the United States, so stop complaining about it. I don't sit here and lecture you on having guns in the UK. You just complain for the sake of hearing your own voice.

Im not complaining, I am not lecturing, and I don't typically talk when I type.

What it is called, in case you don't understand (like the word "seems") is a debate. I have been giving my opinion based on logic, I have shown why I think like I do, and have Data to back what I say up. You dont, so you are ad homming... but I am used to it from you sooooo whatever.

 

[drankin]

Someone (European) earlier suggested that criminals are more skilled with firearms than everyday folks who have firearms. In general, this is not true for a few reasons. The law-abiding gun carrying folks typically frequent gun ranges, shooting competitions, and may have state mandated training in order to retain their permit. Criminals cannot have a permit. Also, It's a social activity to go shooting and to gun shows with your buddies. Many of your shooting buddies at the range to train tend to be law enforcement folks. The criminal element is not very comfortable hanging out with cops or just good folks that are armed.

Cho, was a loner. Not likely he had a membership at a range. Only two months of gun ownership doesn't make you skilled marksman. A bill was struck down not too long ago that would have allowed college students and teachers to possesses a concealed weapons permit. Had just a few been able to carry on campus, the death toll would likely be much lower.

 

[cristo]

Someone (European) earlier suggested that criminals are more skilled with firearms than everyday folks who have firearms. In general, this is not true for a few reasons. The law-abiding gun carrying folks typically frequent gun ranges, shooting competitions, and may have state mandated training in order to retain their permit. Criminals cannot have a permit. Also, It's a social activity to go shooting and to gun shows with your buddies. Many of your shooting buddies at the range to train tend to be law enforcement folks. The criminal element is not very comfortable hanging out with cops or just good folks that are armed.

But has the average gun carrying citizen shot a man before? I would not define "skill" as being able to shoot a can off a wall; I would define it as being able to hit another human being in a situation of life and death. In that sense, I would say that the average criminal is more skillfull.

Cho, was a loner. Not likely he had a membership at a range. Only two months of gun ownership doesn't make you skilled marksman. A bill was struck down not too long ago that would have allowed college students and teachers to possesses a concealed weapons permit. Had just a few been able to carry on campus, the death toll would likely be much lower.

That's just ridiculous, and I would hope that the majority of US citizens believe that there is no place for weapons in universities.

 

[Cyrus]

Ohh sorry don't you understand the word "seems", and the use of the word?

Ok, so you don't have any evidence of your statement. I understand. Then continue to argue the word "seems" and see if I care.

Good point, I see where you are going with this, ignoring the knee jerk emotion in your post, it does shows that the decision to allow guns isn't based on anything, but the fact people want them, and don't really give a **** about the social effect of having them. Which is what I have been saying.
pawning off blame, are you saying its my fault you have guns?

I already TOLD YOU why its there. Now you are just IGNORING what I said. I will tell you one last time, we have guns because the intent of the constitution was to keep the government in check. So stop comming up with this "decision to own guns isn't based on anything" NONSENSE. And YES, you ARE calling responsible gun owners selfish. You are putting blame on people who did nothing wrong because you can't live with the fact that there ARE responsible gun owners in the world. Its hard to swallow the truth, huh?

Im not complaining, I am not lecturing, and I don't typically talk when I type.

Yes, you ARE. You have been doing it nonstop. In fact, you were the first to go off on a "I told you so" tyrade in the Vignia Tech thread, which was inappropriate. Get some class.

What it is called, in case you don't understand (like the word "seems") is a debate. I have been giving my opinion based on logic, I have shown why I think like I do, and have Data to back what I say up. You dont, so you are ad homming... but I am used to it from you sooooo whatever.

Come up with something better than this buddy.

 

[Huckleberry]

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.

I wouldn't say guns are useless in overthrowing the government. Any militia would have some real problems against a well trained military in an open field. A million guns in a million homes is an entirely different story. It would make holding any ground very difficult, requiring far too many soldiers for the amount of land they intend to control. Far more importantly however, it is the Constitution itself that helps prevent this sort of thing.

-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).

This is also my opinion. Having checked a little on the internet I can see that gun sales in the US rise dramatically when gun related crimes rise in an area. For example, gun sales in New Orleans after the crime resulting from the chaos created by hurricane Katrina.
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/27/gun-sales-soar-big-easy/

Citizens, the tourism industry, police and politicians have been alarmed by the wave of killings in New Orleans, with 162 in 2006 and 37 so far this year. A Tulane University study put the city's 2006 homicide rate at 96 slayings per 100,000 people, the highest in the nation.

That isn't to say that guns are never useful in home defense, but I worry that people like this woman who claim that they feel more confident because they purchased a firearm concern me. Sure, she is more confident, but is she really more safe because she has a firearm when other means of home defense are more effective? I think she bought the gun to alleviate her fears, which is a mistake IMO.

-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. American society can be violent in any case, whether there are guns or not. Our culture in many ways encourages aggressive and violent behavior. A ban on guns won't make us a more peaceful society. Or are you speaking of situations like what happened in New Orleans where there is lots of crime in an area and the population arms themselves and the result is a lot of guns in a high crime area? I'm skeptical that a ban on guns would be effective in preventing crime in a situation like that in this country.

-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

Not entirely. New amendments have been made since the original was drafted and one amendment was repealed. The Constitution has changed and so is not itself above encroachment. What is above encroachment is the right to liberty that the document represents. I would hope that Americans value their right to liberty above the safety of government. The second amendment is so vital in this regard because it is the lynchpin between our liberty and the governments authority over us. This is the biggest hurdle to any gun ban in this country.

I wouldn't say that even the poorest of theives know anything about the home they are breaking into. Some of the drug addicts we have running around these days (which are the most dangerous of criminals) will do little research before picking a house. No one has said that owning a gun is like living in a fortress.

I think you underestimate drug addicts. It takes a clever person to survive an expensive addiction while possibly being homeless or unemployed. They are desperate and dangerous, but like any intelligent predator, they will at least attempt to find weaker prey.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I do not support a ban. It goes against what I believe this country stands for. I want to live in a nation that protects my freedom. I'm not willing to sacrafice that for safety. I think that a government that does so has no faith in its people's ability to reason. The goal is to make a peaceful society AND keep our freedoms and live in a society where we can be civil to each other. Banning guns will not make us civil. To do that we need to change our culture, not our constitution. So far we seem to be doing a poor job of it, but that's my hope.

 

[siddharth]

Had just a few been able to carry on campus, the death toll would likely be much lower.

Conversely, one could argue that since there were more students with guns in campus, this type of incident would have been more probable. I don't think that arguing with hypothetical situations will actually achieve anything in this debate.

The best thing would be a detailed statistical analysis, looking at the link between homicide, crime and suicide rates and the availability of guns.

Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, as people are far too set in their own opinions to change. I respect your opinion, but I don't live in your country, and thus cannot really understand the point of view of people who believe that guns are good

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I haven't ever seen any data to back that up.

Can you honestly say if you were planning a break-in and you valued your life at all and you were given a choice between 2 houses, one with guns and one without that it wouldn't matter either way?

 

[drankin]

But has the average gun carrying citizen shot a man before? I would not define "skill" as being able to shoot a can off a wall; I would define it as being able to hit another human being in a situation of life and death. In that sense, I would say that the average criminal is more skillfull.



That's just ridiculous, and I would hope that the majority of US citizens believe that there is no place for weapons in universities.

The don't put up cans at a firing range Just like practicing martial arts. You practice various self-defense scenarios, quick draws, running, etc over a long period of time and you become very skilled. I'd put a veteran from a gun range that has never shot anyone against any common thug who has. The thug doesn't have a chance. You've watched too many movies.

It is absolutely not ridiculous for folks to be able to defend themselves at a university. That doesn't even make sense. "You've come here to learn, but while learning you are completely helpless to defend yourself against gun toting madmen, sorry". That's rediculous.

 

[Anttech]

I will tell you one last time, we have guns because the intent of the constitution was to keep the government in check. So stop comming up with this "decision to own guns isn't based on anything" NONSENSE. And YES, you ARE calling responsible gun owners selfish. You are putting blame on people who did nothing wrong because you can't live with the fact that there ARE responsible gun owners in the world. Its hard to swollow the truth, huh?

Hey.. why don't you read my posts... Then I wouldn't have to re-explain time and time again.. I know why it was written like it was, but it is now defunct, thus it is not a reason to allow people to continue to carry arms, when they are not effective in the remit of that Law! Yes I am calling everyone who buys and carries guns selfish in the respect that it is harming the whole community---> Just look at America's crime rates. As I have already said, I know there are responsible gun owners, but it seems that (Judging by the crime figures from America) there are way to many irresponsible people with guns, and it harms the whole of society

Now time for you to answer my questions, since everyone else decided to ignore them.

Right, so can we say then:

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.
-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).
-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation
-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

Yes, you ARE. You have been doing it nonstop. In fact, you were the first to go off on a "I told you so" tyrade in the Vignia Tech thread, which was inappropriate. Get some class.

Told you so? That is simply just a ****ing lie, and you know it!.. Yet more attack the poster rubbish, very very weak!

Come up with something better than this buddy.

Just answer the questions and try and be civil for once.