Poll: Guns, are they good or bad?

[Dys]

Have serious quarantine laws that are properly enforced, then we can worry about restricting firearm ownership (because really, there's no reason for anyone to have one).

In the U.S legally owned guns account for very little actual crime, and so by outlawing them one really isn't reducing the number flowing through the community (which one would assume is the desired result).

Guns are guns. They're as good or bad as the person holding one. And yes, I'm well aware of all the ninja activity around here, but I'm ignoring it.

But it'd be interesting to see what'd happen with crime if every bank teller and City employee was required to carry a firearm at all times (after an extensive screening process, of course).

"Hey, I'd like to rob your bank. See? I have a gun."

"I'd like you to not rob our bank. See these thirty guys behind me? They all have guns."

Do you think the kind of people that stick up banks/shops/whatever are too worried about their lives? Is the threat of being killed not enough to make people compliant to the theif in such a situation, armed or otherwise there's still a very good chance people who act hostily will be shot. I'd be far more comfortable with the criminal not having a gun to begin with, thus making the armed workers redundant.

 

[Ghadente]

don't outlaw guns, outlaw idiots from using guns

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think guns should be destroyed permanently. They're design to do one thing and one thing only: kill and wound. Any invention that is designed for nothing more then killing should be gotten rid of. That said, it will never happen. More practically, I don't think regular citizens should have access to guns. The argument "but the bad guys will still get them!" doesn't hold up because if the bad dudes cause enough trouble regular citizens will use the same illegal methods to get guns, or will find other methods to defend themselves beside fight firearms with firearms. I think the precedent should be set that guns are bad and we need to find an alternative to shooting one another (On a sidenote, I support non-lethal methods of defense).

 

[BlueCrossBlueShield]

Guns are guns. They're as good or bad as the person holding one. And yes, I'm well aware of all the ninja activity around here, but I'm ignoring it.

But it'd be interesting to see what'd happen with crime if every bank teller and City employee was required to carry a firearm at all times (after an extensive screening process, of course).

"Hey, I'd like to rob your bank. See? I have a gun."

"I'd like you to not rob our bank. See these thirty guys behind me? They all have guns."

Heheh, awesome. For self-defense, all I think I'd need is one of those telescopic batons.
Also, I think I'll get into visiting shooting ranges. I've gone to one once before, and it's a lot of fun. Not to mention I was a pretty good shot.

 

[Mordwyl]

Fact: Countries such as Malta and Japan have a ban on firearms and most lethal weaponry, whereas the USA does not.
Fact: Crime, especially murders, are almost nonexistant in Malta whereas in Japan they tend to be very rare occasions.

When you're raised in a society that believes any kind of problem can be solved with pulling a trigger you're asking for it.

Excuse me Malta is an island of only 400,000 people where as the US is a famous melting pot where over 300,000,000 people of varying ethnicities, religions and social standing must co-exist unlike Japan where the guy next door will almost certainly speak the same language and have a similar upbringing so conflict is rare. Also Japan has the highest suicide rate of any industrialized nation and the lowest birthrate so the fact that people are killing themselves off faster than people are being born to replace them is not a good thing. You should use as an example [http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm] of a nation with a huge and diverse population living in peace without guns like Great Britain [http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm] that last year only had 42 murders involving handguns or shotguns versus 11 using other weapons. Although the fact that they still occur regardless of them being effectively banned since 1997 shoots a tiny little hole in your opinion.

Now American society does not believe that pulling the triggers will solve every problem just most of them. Ask any Somali pirate holding an American hostage in a boat, in the ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUfj2DtolDU[/youtube]

I picked examples of countries where the bans are actually in place and how it affected them. Of course the examples are fairly extreme although both of their citizens acknowledge the damage from the tools, which as I've said the general varied populace living in the states either ignore or have yet to learn otherwise; the same argument can be applied to sexual education teaching teens the repercussions of unprotected sex.

Violence only harbours more violence. It doesn't end itself.

 

[Rigs83]

Self defense? Hello?

Thats what the police are there for. Hello? -.-;;;

Let me paint you a picture.
Saturday August 9th, 2008, Beijing China.
Over two hundred thousand police and military security forces stationed throughout the city to ensure the security for the Olympics and the safety of all attending.

Time Magazine [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1831074,00.html]
Tang Yongming, 47, stabbed Todd Bachman, of Lakeville, Minn., his wife Barbara and their female Chinese tour guide on Saturday at a popular tourist spot, the Drum Tower, a Dynasty-era building once used to tell time. The Bachmans are in-laws of U.S. volleyball coach Hugh McCutcheon. Todd Bachman died, while his wife's injuries were described as "serious and life-threatening" by the United States Olympic Committee.

Now a Chinese citizen is not allowed to own firearms and thankfully this deranged man had only a knife but even under all that security and media coverage a murder in broad daylight in a crowded area occurred. Before this a terrorist set of a bomb and killed a person at the Atlanta Games and the tragedy of the Munich Games still haunt so many to this day. The police can't protect you and fate shows no mercy.

 

[Dancingman]

*Sigh* This again? Very well.

Quite simply, if you outlaw guns then only criminals will have guns, and people will be unable to defend themselves. If you look at the numbers, states with more lenient gun laws have far lower violent crime rates than those with strict gun laws--this is because criminals are less likely to break into the house of someone they have reason to believe owns a gun.

Damn, I forgot what the exact term for this was, but what you're doing is taking one facet of something about a state (its stance on gun-ownership) and then building your argument around that one facet. Crime is a complicated beast that people spend their whole lives studying. By assuming that, you leave out a huge portion of possibilities. It's like talking about the American Civil War, if you generalize and just say "slavery" you're leaving out a huge portion of other things that played a part in causing the war. However, that may not be quite a good example, because slavery WAS a huge part of the Civil War and the role of gun laws in state crime rates is not determined.

Oh, and I'll take the risk of sounding like a douche and not simply a spirited debater by saying that if you wish to respond to me, do so in a constructive manner (yours was quite constructive, I've just encountered too many people who aren't on this site not to take the precaution), otherwise, I won't bother with a response.

I understand what you are trying to say and I agree whole-heartedly. It isn't about gun laws, its more about standards of living, employment, education, the whole nine yards really. This is why people turn to crime, without poverty...people really wouldn't have a need to run around trying to find a gun to rob someone, but that sadly, is not the world we live in.

Unless of course...I completely misunderstood your post. If so, disregard this! =P

Nope, you interpreted my post in the manner that I intended, and may I complement you on some very constructive commentary .

 

[CptCamoPants]

Firearms are the only things that keep a government from oppressing the people. The government should fear the people, the people shouldn't fear the government.
Edit: The first sentence can be a bit misleading, sorry.
Before the invention of the bow and arrow, it was easy to oppress those weaker than you. Afterwards, any peasant with a grudge could off a king. Long ranged weapons make sure that a government will try hard to do good and keep the people happy.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

*Sigh* This again? Very well.

Quite simply, if you outlaw guns then only criminals will have guns, and people will be unable to defend themselves. If you look at the numbers, states with more lenient gun laws have far lower violent crime rates than those with strict gun laws--this is because criminals are less likely to break into the house of someone they have reason to believe owns a gun.

Damn, I forgot what the exact term for this was, but what you're doing is taking one facet of something about a state (its stance on gun-ownership) and then building your argument around that one facet. Crime is a complicated beast that people spend their whole lives studying. By assuming that, you leave out a huge portion of possibilities. It's like talking about the American Civil War, if you generalize and just say "slavery" you're leaving out a huge portion of other things that played a part in causing the war. However, that may not be quite a good example, because slavery WAS a huge part of the Civil War and the role of gun laws in state crime rates is not determined.

Oh, and I'll take the risk of sounding like a douche and not simply a spirited debater by saying that if you wish to respond to me, do so in a constructive manner (yours was quite constructive, I've just encountered too many people who aren't on this site not to take the precaution), otherwise, I won't bother with a response.

I understand what you are trying to say and I agree whole-heartedly. It isn't about gun laws, its more about standards of living, employment, education, the whole nine yards really. This is why people turn to crime, without poverty...people really wouldn't have a need to run around trying to find a gun to rob someone, but that sadly, is not the world we live in.

Unless of course...I completely misunderstood your post. If so, disregard this! =P

Nope, you interpreted my post in the manner that I intended, and may I complement you on some very constructive commentary .

Yay! Now I can go to sleep tonight! Well, right now actually. =P Goodnight people of the Escapist, 'til tomorrow.

 

[kawligia]

snip

If you think the police will EVER get there in time to prevent a crime in progress you are a fool.

And I don't care how much you don't like guns, the Constitution protects gun ownership as a civil right. You CANNOT pass a statute banning guns. You can only regulate ownership to a small extent. If you want to BAN guns, you will need a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that because it's extremely difficult.

 

[DP155ToneZone]

I quite honestly why these killing machines haven't been outlawed earlier. Yes, there is political red tape and constitutional issues. But really, these things are designed for killing efficency. There is no point saying, "Ohhh, I need to defend myself from other gun carriers!!!" because the whole raison d'être of police is protect society from violent aggression. Now, I'm not saying that you should put your lives in the hands of police and complain if they don't come through 100%. What I am saying is that violence stems from a society that does not suppress it. You can't put your faith in the almighty gun to protect you. Your mugger thought the same thing when he/her bought his/her gun. Reading this I'm reminded of the Ghandi quote "An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

Guns aren't bad, like knives or swords or socks and snooker balls. It's the idiots who go around using and abusing such things that cause problems.

I've carried a Swiss Army Knife for years ans alot of people frown on it because it has two blades, the real use i have for it is the screw driver set, the pliers and all the other tools it alows me to carry in a small compact easy to use set

 

[gsf1200]

I'm in the US, and I don't understand the anti gun people. Guns are the great equalizer. Without them, the weak are at the mercy of the strong. With a gun, a 90-yr old women in a wheelchair can chase away a big 20-yr old man. Ideally, the good people would be armed, and the bad people unarmed. Since this is impossible, you arm everyone, since the good people FAR outnumber the bad people.

 

[Blood_Lined]

The worst possible thing that we could do for our country is enforce gun control which is EXACTLY what Adolf Hitler did, and is EXACTLY what that other guy whom is dictating Iran as of now did, which is why there has been news of a revolt.

Outlawing guns, or enforcing gun control IS the first step towards a totalitarian rule by our government, which is exactly why we have the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from that very same government.

 

[CptCamoPants]

No wall of text for me, just go up and read what he said

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will use guns.
Why does everyone think that outlawing something will get rid of it?
If that were true then there would be NO murderers
NO drug addicts/dealers
NO child molesters
NO rapists
etc...
If they actually managed to take firearms away from the civilian populace, then there would be nothing stopping a government from using military or paramilitary forces to oppress the people, they just wouldn't be able to defend themselves from the government. Relying on the goodwill of a government to protect you, when their leaders are only there because they like power is like trusting a convicted child molester to babysit your kids.
Besides, if they did manage to take firearms away from everyone, then they'd just start making guns. Or they'd use whatever else they can get their hands on.

 

[Rigs83]

Fact: Countries such as Malta and Japan have a ban on firearms and most lethal weaponry, whereas the USA does not.
Fact: Crime, especially murders, are almost nonexistant in Malta whereas in Japan they tend to be very rare occasions.

When you're raised in a society that believes any kind of problem can be solved with pulling a trigger you're asking for it.

Excuse me Malta is an island of only 400,000 people where as the US is a famous melting pot where over 300,000,000 people of varying ethnicities, religions and social standing must co-exist unlike Japan where the guy next door will almost certainly speak the same language and have a similar upbringing so conflict is rare. Also Japan has the highest suicide rate of any industrialized nation and the lowest birthrate so the fact that people are killing themselves off faster than people are being born to replace them is not a good thing. You should use as an example [http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm] of a nation with a huge and diverse population living in peace without guns like Great Britain [http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm] that last year only had 42 murders involving handguns or shotguns versus 11 using other weapons. Although the fact that they still occur regardless of them being effectively banned since 1997 shoots a tiny little hole in your opinion.

You did not cite extreme examples you cited poor examples. The US is unique in that a compact exist between the Government and the governed. Americans have the right to bear arms so in the event that the state should revoke their rights they have a legal means to resist, violently if need be. Imagine if minorities like the Jews or Roma of Europe had that right in Italy and Germany or if the populace voiced opposition to having three prime ministers assassinated in Japan before World War 2.

You may not like firearms but you have the right to have them or not to have them as you wish in the US and I would rather live with threat of violence from a fellow citizen than knowing the state can choose what other right to take with impunity.

Spoiler: Or in another way

[HEADING=3]I am Chaotic Good.[/HEADING]

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Have serious quarantine laws that are properly enforced, then we can worry about restricting firearm ownership (because really, there's no reason for anyone to have one).

In the U.S legally owned guns account for very little actual crime, and so by outlawing them one really isn't reducing the number flowing through the community (which one would assume is the desired result).

Guns are guns. They're as good or bad as the person holding one. And yes, I'm well aware of all the ninja activity around here, but I'm ignoring it.

But it'd be interesting to see what'd happen with crime if every bank teller and City employee was required to carry a firearm at all times (after an extensive screening process, of course).

"Hey, I'd like to rob your bank. See? I have a gun."

"I'd like you to not rob our bank. See these thirty guys behind me? They all have guns."

Do you think the kind of people that stick up banks/shops/whatever are too worried about their lives? Is the threat of being killed not enough to make people compliant to the theif in such a situation, armed or otherwise there's still a very good chance people who act hostily will be shot. I'd be far more comfortable with the criminal not having a gun to begin with, thus making the armed workers redundant.

Making it illegal to own guns has little effect on people who plan to break laws.

It would be better if nobody had any need to use a weapon on anybody else and we settled all our problems in the Mortal Kombat Tournament, but that's a pipe dream.

 

[Darkrain11]

People will get what they want one way or another. Stricter gun control laws, more in-depth background chacks, and the limiting of guns in problem will help decrease gun violence.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

*Sigh* This again? Very well.

Quite simply, if you outlaw guns then only criminals will have guns, and people will be unable to defend themselves. If you look at the numbers, states with more lenient gun laws have far lower violent crime rates than those with strict gun laws--this is because criminals are less likely to break into the house of someone they have reason to believe owns a gun.

Actually, basically this.

I share this opinion as well.