Well, I was going to stay out of this and avoid the gun issue all together. But some of the arguments being thrown around are just plain ridiculous, and in some cases, hypocritical.
I don't want to debate this (this is my last post here) and I was going to let someone else respond, but as no one else has, here goes.
mugaliens said:
Yes, Evo, many of us can honestly say we won't snap. I'm sorry if you can't trust that, but there it is. I won't snap. If you can't trust this then I suggest you file this with your local law enforcement officer.
I have to disagree, purely because someone snapping can be down to circumstances. Until you have experienced situation X, it's hard to know how you will react when it occurs. It could be just what you need to go over the edge.
Crap, child. Our government entrusted us with nuclear weapons. We didn't fold then, why in the world would we fold now? (rolls eyes)
Let's not make things up, they don't trust
us with nuclear weapons at all. Heck, they don't trust people around nuclear power plants let alone missile silos. They trust the military with a whole host of security, checks and procedures in place - which all lead back to the government.
What happens if you're in your home and a criminal breaks in intent on killing you and your family?
What happens if a natural disaster occurs and the infrastructure and services break down completely, and you have to deal with roving bands of thieves and criminals?
What happens if you are walking on the street and see a group of thugs coming towards you?
Evo was attacked because of her 'what if' earlier and yet here we are with more, but from your side.
These 'what if' questions are even less likely than evo's. So let's just drop it.
Also, based on the above (1 & 3) Britain must be a hell hole. Oh wait, it isn't.
Part of the reason for civilians having the right to bear arms is also to prevent a police state from ever forming as well.
So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
If you think that couldn't happen, what if a major natural disaster occurs that sets the whole country into complete chaos? What if you then end up with a potential would-be dictator trying to take over? And let's say this dictator wannabe has a lot of potential followers and backers, because a lot of people are scared. The people being armed serves as a counter to these types of things.
As above.
1) Acquire a gun illegally, so that then when they go on a shooting spree, everyone else is un-armed
Well that isn't so easy. It isn't that easy to get a gun in Britain.
2) Use something different for a weapon.
That changes things. Killing with a gun is not the same as killing with, let's say a steel bar.
DanP said:
We can't ban the right to bear weapons, just for the case someone decides to shoot another person.
We can't ban ppl from driving cars, just because some drivers are irresponsible and sooner or later will cause a deadly accident.
Capability to kill is not the same thing as designed to. A car is designed to transport people / things. A gun is designed to kill. If you carry a gun, with the intention of using it (whether in defence or otherwise) you are willing to kill. When driving a car, that isn't the intention at all. The argument doesn't hold up. Apples and oranges.
Mugs, I'd like to know how they judge an unintentional death with a firearm. Is it, simply a gun goes off by accident and kills someone? That wouldn't be a fair metric, unintentional car deaths and unintentional firearm deaths. Flip this around and look at intentional firearm deaths and intentional car deaths, oh look it's inverted and shows the exact opposite. These numbers don't mean anything because you aren't comparing relevant scenarios. They aren't a reliable indication of anything.
I know, you'll all come down on me for invoking "it doesn't happen in Britain" etc. But, it's for a reason. You can argue how much you need a gun all you like, but at the end of the day, the biggest problem you have is that they have been a part of your culture for so long and embedded in society for hundreds of years, so you can't just ban them or get rid of them. They are everywhere and despite my views on it, I agree that under your circumstance you need them to counter the fact they are so prevalent.
Jared James, Out!
One if by land, two if by sea. Got your horse ready? Come on mugs, who really thinks they need to carry guns and ammo to fight invaders in the street?
