The law abiding populace should be able to defend themselves legally with guns.
The criminals will arm themselves anyway.
Some people think that the criminals will only arm themselves because the law-abiding populace does. I disagree. The thief is generally going to be one up on his victim. The victim then ups his security standards in response.
A person feels safe in his home, doors unlocked, until someone breaks in, maybe not even that home. The person locks the doors; someone breaks the locks. This advancement of security goes both passive and active. And one of those active ways is weaponry.
Originally posted by crythiasDon't be silly. Gun control, besides making it harder for criminals, decreases the amount of damage from hot headed, unplanned incidents.
The law abiding populace should be able to defend themselves legally with guns.
The criminals will arm themselves anyway.
Some people think that the criminals will only arm themselves because the law-abiding populace does. I disagree. The thief is generally going to be one up on his victim. The victim then ups his security standards in response.
A ...[text shortened]... dvancement of security goes both passive and active. And one of those active ways is weaponry.
Some bloke finds out his wife is cheating; an argument over nothing sparks up on a street corner; a fender bender occurs at a traffic light. Any of these could end in something much deadlier if there's a gun involved. I know I fell much safer knowing how few people around me own a gun. I'd prefer to run the risk of being burgled, thank you very much.
Originally posted by dylGun control only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. The criminal element will always find a way to obtain what they want, even if it is illegal.
Don't be silly. Gun control, besides making it harder for criminals, decreases the amount of damage from hot headed, unplanned incidents.
Some bloke finds out his wife is cheating; an argument over nothing sparks up on a street corner; a fender bender occurs at a traffic light. Any of these could end in something much deadlier if there's a gun involved. I kn ...[text shortened]... people around me own a gun. I'd prefer to run the risk of being burgled, thank you very much.
Originally posted by Crowleyno i have never been to south africa.
You've obviously not been to South Africa.
Check out the St. Nelson thread for the graphic description.
I want a 9mil, I'd feel safer.
would you like all your nasty """criminals""" to have guns too?
I don't like the idea of people having guns. My argument goes like this:
Suppose you don't have a gun in the house. Burglar comes in, he does have a gun. He points the gun at you and tells you to give him your valuables. You do so. You report the robbery to the police and the next day claim on the insurance for the stolen property. No-one is hurt, and all you have lost is the no claims bonus on your house insurance.
Now, suppose you do have a gun. You keep it in a locked box on top of the closet to stop your kids getting at it. Burglar comes in, he is armed too. Now, if he points the gun at you, what are you going to do? Your gun is sitting in a locked box a few feet away. This is the best case scenario for having a gun in the house, it ends up similairly to the last case. Now suppose you can easily get to the gun. Are you James Bond? Of course not. Real life isn't like the movies. Perhaps you're 5 year old kid gets scared and runs into the line of fire. Perhaps the robber is quicker than you, and it's your head splattered all over the walls instead of his. Are you willing to take these risks for a few trinkets or electronic goods? I know I'm not.
Originally posted by crythiasThe US has 11.000 gun related deaths per year.
The law abiding populace should be able to defend themselves legally with guns.
The criminals will arm themselves anyway.
Some people think that the criminals will only arm themselves because the law-abiding populace does. I disagree. The thief is generally going to be one up on his victim. The victim then ups his security standards in response.
A ...[text shortened]... dvancement of security goes both passive and active. And one of those active ways is weaponry.
Britain has 74.
Somewhere, somehow, having guns and using them and not having guns and not using them has to be taken into the equation.
Now, I know that in "Bowling for Colombine" it becomes blatantly clear that having the guns isn't the only reason for the death rate being so high (as in Canada they have more guns per head of the population and even less gun related deaths than Britain), but having guns laying around the house is just screeching for accidents to happen.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by crythiasI've been thinking about this and I realise that there is a relation between this thread and capital punishment. If you allow citizens to, in any non-life threatening cases, legally kill other citizens then you have to allow capital punishment. The logic is this:
The law abiding populace should be able to defend themselves legally with guns.
The criminals will arm themselves anyway.
Some people think that the criminals will only arm themselves because the law-abiding populace does. I disagree. The thief is generally going to be one up on his victim. The victim then ups his security standards in response.
A ...[text shortened]... dvancement of security goes both passive and active. And one of those active ways is weaponry.
If citizens can be legally armed and legally allowed to shoot (say) intruders on their property - this will not stop burglary. However it will mean that burglars will arm themselves as they will want to shoot the householder before they get shot themselves. To stop all burglars arming themselves you have to rule that shooting a householder in this situation is punishable by death, therebye meaning there is less point in the burglar killing the householder as he will not save his own life by such an action.
The other way, as practiced in various countries, is to make it illegal for householders to kill burglars. Then the penalty for a burglar shooting a housekeeper must still be much more severe than that for burglary, but there is no need to punish this offence by death because the burglar is not at risk of death when he burgles the house.
Of course, there is no point in allowing householders to arm themselves, if it is against the law for them to use their weapons, so the two approaces follow on logically from a country's choice to allow its citizens to wield lethal weapons or not.
Sorry to seem if I'm frivolising this thread but has anyone seen Chris Rock's stand up take on the gun problem in America? It follows something like this,
"The problem ain't the guns, the problem is the bullets, you make the bullets cost $10,000 then somebody gonna have to be really pissed to pull that trigger, you can just see it now 'ok fool, I'm gonna shoot your ass! Well, not now, but I'm gonna go away, get a second job, save for a while, then come back and blow your mother******* head off!' And you know noone's gonna shot by accident!"
I realise this isn't a realistic solution, but it made me laugh seeing it again recently.
Originally posted by shavixmirPlease to be defining Britain for we who do not understand the difference. It's like calling people of the US "Americans". Well, Canadians are Americans in the sense of they are part of North America, though they'd shudder to actually think they were Americans...
The US has 11.000 gun related deaths per year.
Britain has 74.
Somewhere, somehow, having guns and using them and not having guns and not using them has to be taken into the equation.
Now, I know that in "Bowling for Colombine" it becomes blatantly clear that having the guns isn't the only reason for the death rate being so high (as in Canada ...[text shortened]... n Britain), but having guns laying around the house is just screeching for accidents to happen.
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population.html
Population of US (approx) 293,101,179 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock
CDC Firearm Deaths (2001): 29,573 (population2001) 285,317,572
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
Some information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
I'll discuss this later.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by crythiasok - from your figures, 0.01% of the US population die every year from being shot (by the way, does that include suicide?).
Please to be defining Britain for we who do not understand the difference. It's like calling people of the US "Americans". Well, Canadians are Americans in the sense of they are part of North America, though they'd shudder to actually think they were Americans...
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population.html
Population ...[text shortened]... ce Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
I'll discuss this later.
In 2001/02, in England and Wales, there were 16 homicides per million people, 12% of those involved firearms, so 0.0002 % of the UK population were illegally killed by being shot (excludes suicide).
(source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf)