Gun Control (warning: heated arguments could happen)

The US military can pull out of whever it wishes. Obviously pulling out of 'home territory' would be a more difficult prospect for them to stomach but of course, it could happen.


Also, I dont know if you noticed this, but the US military seem to be much more cautious against enemies who have more guns. The general rule is, the more guns an enemy has, the less likely the US is going to attack in any decisive way. Guns put them off, as well they should.

 

I think that also helps the US. Given our gun culture, I reckon any possible attackers consider the fact that any invasion will be met with hostilities by both the armed forces and private citizens.

 

Honestly, unless the aforementioned invading force happened to be canada or mexico, I think they'd be too scared about getting nuked to even start thinking about armed citizens.

 

The United States Army was never in Afghanistan in full force. From my understanding as soon as you join the military you sign off your rights, so 'just leaving' isn't an option.

The military would be more organized, heavily armed, more tactical, and have air support, on top of being able to snipe anyone they want with a predator drone.

I'm sorry but you'd never even be able to get enough people together to stage a revolution, it's impossible to hide that. You'd get raided and shut down in a heart beat.

 

But we're talking about a tyrannical government here. Not a democratic cares-for-the-troops government.

 

I'd send the unfit to the gym, and put lasers in the wheelchairs of the disabled! Zap!

 

Anti. I've lived in Britain all my life and never felt like I needed a gun to be secure. We don't need guns for security.

 

So, the point is, you're conceding that "everybody should do martial arts" is not the answer, right?

 

It's simple less guns less deaths more guns more deaths. I understand that some people really love guns, but you have to think about all of the people getting shot and killed because some maniac was so easily able to get a gun. Guns shouldn't be easy to get let alone legal at at all for citizens. Guns were made do be killing machines for elitist organized murder aka "war". Not to be toy or used for recreation. I don't even think war should be legal.

 

For those that can do them, it's not a bad idea, though I'm not a believer that everyone can do everything. But I support being in shape, being aware, and learning at least some some basics of self defense; you're not always going to have a gun handy, and it strikes me as a bit paranoid to try to.

At the same time, guns for people with disabilities such as being blind, paralyzed and having diseases that cause difficulties in muscular control would seem a bad idea.

There's really no one size fits all solution, though wheelchairs with sparkle pony lasers, and seeing eye attack dogs would help close the gap!

 

This is another argument entirely, but I wish this were true. The problem is related to why guns must stay legal: you can write all the laws you want, but when the other person is willing and able to kill, you must fight fire with literal fire or get slaughtered. The person with the gun makes the rules.

It's the same reason why I support the maintenance of our nuclear arsenal, and hope we never have to use it. Because if the enemies have them, we sure as hell have to be able to return the favor.

 

[/COLOR]

Whether your vegetarian or not is not a direct argument for or against gun control.
Secondly most robbery cases aren't equal, in the sense that you'll have a chance to draw your gun before the robber has pointed his at you or put a knife to your throat.
Thirdly Columbine had an armed guard, that did not help to prevent the massacre occuring there.
I'm not getting your reference to dogs.
And animal road kill is hardly an argument for gun ownership.[/QUOTE]

1. True. But if he wasnt the his argument would have a major flaw.
2. Our door has an alarm and my dads 357 sits on his nightstand. Good luck.
3. Metal detectors at the doors. Simple fix.
4.I was making a point that the cattle that get processed haveto die somehow. The bolt gun stuff creeps me out though.
5. My dog was attacked by another dog and had to be put down as well. You save the animal from suffering any longer.

Also, what about carrying one on you? I know id like to have a handgun on me when someone decides to beat the c*** out of me because they are transphobes.

 

I believe in no guns for any purpose but military/policing (only used in extreme circumstances), and hunting/farming purposes. And with any civilian owning weaponry, I think the gun should only be able to fire once before requiring a reload. In Australia, you need a reason to own a weapon, and that has pushed down gun violence rates significantly.

There is a common argument that criminals don't care about the law, which is often true. But that ignores that normal people can do exceedingly stupid things when they have an easy means to do so, such as owning a gun. And should there ever be a fight against a tyrannical government, remember that if guns are so easily available, their civilian supporters will be able to have them too, which leaves more violence, and even less chance at winning for the oppressed opposition.

 

What if you're trying to defend yourself and you miss?

 

A robbery doesn't occur at home most of the time but in the street.
When talking about breakins there's a good chance the criminal already has his gun drawn and will shoot your father as soon as he comes in sight.
More-over as the stats have shown, there are very few occurences where guns have been used in self-defense, and the rate of accidents, suicides and homocide by gun owners are way higher.

Misses the point completely that the presence of 'a good guy with a gun' didn't help prevent the massacre.
There are ways around metal detectors.

I don't see how this is an argument for personal gun ownsership, there are other ways to kill cattle.

Again, doesn't require guns.

Dangerous. Both for the risk that you (generally speaking) could become enraged and start shooting and the risk that your opponent will manage to take it of you and shoot you.

And what if they have a gun? Because allowing perosnal gun ownership gives those people acces to guns as well.

 

You won't have the chance to call anyone if those gay bashers shoot you down with a gun.

Let's just give everyone guns, that way we can all defend ourselves from other people with guns. I'm missing the logics behind this. It's just absolutely ridiculous to me. I'm happy no one is allowed to have a gun over here. That's what makes me feel safe. Not the idea that I can shoot someone in the head when they try to attack me with their gun.

 

There are lots of UK people on this site. How many gun murders happen in the UK per year? Are people allowed to own personal killer weapons? At t he core, the US is a fundamentally Puritan, cowboy, anti-intellectual culture.

 

I was about to argue, but at times you're not far off. The idiots far outnumber the intellectuals here. That is not strong enough evidence to say the government needs to save us from ourselves by taking away our guns, but it should serve as a wake-up call to those who are drifting through life with hastily-established ideals as to what's really important.

Justinf, your idea of safety works on the small scale. If you really can assure nobody has guns, the only way you can be killed is up-close and personal. However, with a country the size of (and with an established amount of weapons as) the US, there is no way to guarantee that banning guns will actually take them out of play. Proponents argue that it will disarm the good citizens who want to follow the laws, making them easy prey for people who don't obey the laws. Even with legal ways of getting guns, we have a lot of gangbangers here who have stolen guns and have no qualms about shooting unarmed people. I'm not sure where you stand on the maintenance of "gun-free zones" but they tend to be "easy mass murder" zones when people walk right past the signs packing heat. Raised to a national level, it could spell disaster. :/

 

Let me get this straight. It's illegal to kill people but a item that can ONLY be used to kill or mane is legal. That doesn't really make sense. And we are all not bruce willis we couldn't defend our selfs from a armed gang regardless of whether or not we had a gun.

 

Not trying to dominate this thread but some clarification is necessary. Murder is illegal; killing can be justified in certain circumstances, primarily if somebody is trying to kill you first*. And regardless of the fact that not everyone is Bruce Willis, more people have the opportunity to successfully preserve their lives with legal ownership of guns than without.

*Killing in self-defense is currently a hot-button issue what with the George Zimmerman situation. I doubt it's legal everywhere, but I consider it part of an inalienable right to life. Somebody tries to take yours, they waive the right to theirs.