Gun Control [Caradog vs GrnEyedDvl] Commentary Thread {fini}

[Desperado †]

I challenge anyone on the subject of Dangerous Gun Loving peoples.

I hate Guns, and think that the whole 'have a gun to protect yourself' thing is stupid.

Most come up with the argument that if someone broke into your house it would be better if you had a gun to protect yourself.

But if gun laws are quite light then chances are the intruder will have a gun also. Yes, burglers do have guns in Britain and homeowners do very very occainsionally get shot, but lets face it, most brake inns tend to be drunks or bad teenagers.

----

Link to Debate Thread.

[Philos Sophos]

Well,in America,guns should be regulated and not everyone should have a shotgun in their home.The U.S has a good army to protect them and I'll guess the law enforcement there are pretty good as well.

But if you think from that perspective,that the robber may have a gun too then there's a dilemma.

But in small countries,guns laws should be more softer because their armies aren't so big to protect them itselves.

[Desperado †]

Depends where the country is. But I don't trust people with guns at all. Including soldiers.

I see your point on smaller countries, but bein a pacifist I'm anti armies as well.

Switserland is small, and they have no army and a lot of guns. So maybe they follow your point.

But anyway, America is huge, and has loads of nuclear weapons and is currently the worlds supperpower. They do not need guns.

[Astaroth]

[quote=Caradog;3775167]

Switserland is small, and they have no army

No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Swiss soldiers.

But anyway, America is huge, and has loads of nuclear weapons and is currently the worlds supperpower. They do not need guns.

In case you are talking about soldiers etc that makes no sense. If you talk about "common people" you have a point.

I am against guns for "normal people" but police and soldiers need them for obvious reasons. Normal guys don't need guns simply because they make the possibilities of a) one of your family members comitting suicide with them and b) one of your family members or yourself dying through a gunshot much more likely, whereas the chance of successfully "defending your home" is only slightly bigger.

[Philos Sophos]

Well,Pacifism is a nice way of thought by sadly,it doesn't work in real life...Guns will allways stay and if you decide to ban them then you're pretty much ed.

[Desperado †]

Yes. Guns shall allways stay. But hopefully not in the hands of any old Joe

[Surgeon]

I'm pretty sure most Americans own guns primarily because they like putting holes into targets down the range, and only secondarily for self defense.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Caradog you are on. One on one vs me in a new thread, spectators keep comments to a minimum please.

[Nietzsche]

Home invasions. You would leave your protection and family welfare at the hands of the rapidity of a police response? Easy to say yes if you live in a nice comfortable suburb or in a rural area where a gun is expected to exist in every household.

I can site multiple instances on multiple websites where law-abiding citizens defended their homes against rapacious thugs bent on theft, or physical assault and violence. The idea of a society without guns conceives of absolute control over the criminal element that makes them necessary and assumes the perfect nature of the police who must wield them. I for one am not willing to bet my family's safety on a rapid police response to a dangerous criminal in my house.

The idea that gun ownership leads to violence has been disproven in a multitude of studies. Of course it's been a policy of interventionists to take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens because of some misguided notion that the statement guns = violence is true. These same people live in protected gated communities that are a fortress to the types of thugs that wander the streets of modern cities.

Of course there is always the 2nd Amendment which conceived of a responsible populace wishing to bear arms in protection of their homes and families on the frontier (a place as dangerous as any inner city) and to keep the workings of government honest. A disarmed populace is easy to control. An armed one is a populace to be respected. I can't remember who the quote comes from but I remember reading a quote stating "a subject peoples should not fear their ruler, he should fear them." In my opinion, this is an essential element for responsible government.

Apologies to GrnEyeDvl I did not notice your post until after mine had posted. The floor is yours sir.

[Legionem Insanis]

The idea that gun ownership leads to violence has been disproven in a multitude of studies. Of course it's been a policy of interventionists to take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens because of some misguided notion that the statement guns = violence is true. These same people live in protected gated communities that are a fortress to the types of thugs that wander the streets of modern cities.

Our Hollywood elite come to mind. Pacifism is a luxury.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I started a new thread Nietzsche for my one on one vs Caradog, this one is open game. Caradog should be warned, he cannot handle me on this debate.

[Desperado †]

Very well. Keep this thread going though, mates.

[Legionem Insanis]

I challenge you to not paint all people with one brush. Gun ownership/control is a fair debate but the intent of this thread is obvious.

America is a large country and its population is hardly monolithic. Sure there are people that fit the "gun totin' redneck" stereotype you have in mind but there are pacifist hippies too.

And some people are just "average Joes". Some of which after having been robbed or raped at gunpoint may decide to arm themselves. If something like that happened to me I would probably be "fanatical" about arming myself as well.

[Kleos]

G.E.Devil - the following might come in handy concerning gun ownership and the effect on violent crime; seeing as your opponent is from the UK:

As the Home Office-produced (p.12, table 7a) table below shows; England and Wales has a rate of 23 violent crimes per 1000, so 2,300 per 100,000


(measured from September 05 - September 06; NOT two years)

While the United States has a violent crime rate of just 469.2 per 100,000

******

Handgun crime up in the UK despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

******

Gun crime continues to increase in UK, despite handgun ban in 1997 and strict gun control laws, various sources
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...every-day.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...sh-cities.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2328368.ece
("official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.")

[GrnEyedDvl]

TY Kleos, you are absolutely right. One of the posts I linked to above has similar information in it. I havent taken him to task on other countries yet as he specifically opened by mentioning America. But I intend to once I get a response or two from him.

[Kiljan Arslan]

I don't think I COULD OWN A GUN BECAUSE I'M A BIT OF A CLUTZ. THATS WHY I'LL RELY ON A TRANGUILIZER GUN FOR MY DEFENCE.

edit {fraking hell capslock!)

[Celsius]

I have about 10 guns. All of them are for hunting. But, if the time comes, I will defend myself with one.

[Gelgoog]

legal civilian ownership of firearms has rarely been a problem. in fact the more loose the concealed carry laws the more positive impact civilians make on the crime. Now if you want to argue that guns are bad, you have to realize that its illegal arms that make up the bulk of violent crime and making laws to ban firearms does little to affect these people as they are already breaking the laws, all you do is disarm law abidding citizens and make them prey to criminals who now know they are disarmed.

A free society shouldnt need to ban civil liberties in order to possibly gain more security.

[Celsius]

I just sat here and watched your entire Signature. I think it's pretty funny.


Plus+ Rep.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Hey all.

I just wanted everyone to know that even though Caradog are completely opposite on our views, he just sent me a very nice PM, and a promise to respond to my latest post of course. Its nice to have an honest debate with a guy like Caradog, who cares more for the points being made than throwing out insults, and I wanted everyone to know he's showing some real class here.

+ rep for Caradog