Your opinion of guns

[Thatguy71]

I live in NH. I'm actually not sure about being 21 to buy fireworks. Someone told me.

Ah, well being up there in the North East it would not suprise me one bit if they did make that a law.

 

[sremick]

I'm planning to buy an M9 sidearm when I hit 18. I believe in America I can actually walk around with a concealed weapon.

It varies from state to state... there's not a universal law across the USA.

Since you're in NH, you should read this:

http://www.pgnh.org/gunlawfaqs

 

[Frogger]

So faced with a criminal with a gun, explosive device, or other non-gun deadly-weapon, what do they do? How many people need to die before someone can fetch a pistol from HQ and address the situation?

The "fun" is simply the sense of accomplishment. Like practicing putting out a fire. The purpose is to become comfortable and familiar with the device you might depend on to save your life (or that of others).



Lower gun crimes, but you do realize that the UK has a higher overall crime-rate than the USA, right?

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm
Gun-owning potential victims deter crime.

And note that Vermont has much-lower crime than most of the rest of the USA, and we have the most-relaxed gun laws. I'd be interested in comparing Vermont against the UK, if I can dig up some statistics...

My country sucks in many aspects, and we're far too leniant on people committing crime, gun laws are the only thing that's strict here, and I think that benefits people even more, because other things, nah, they're not going to make much impact than a gun. Knowing people were allowed to have guns, I wouldn't freaking walk outside, or in the dark.

Presuming you have to be of a certain age, there's nothing stopping people with guns jumping schoolkids and robbing them of their iPods and stuff like that, that's just something I don't want.

And yeah, police that are very rarely approached by people with guns, and I think that the general public would warn them first so they know what they're dealing with, they still wear bulletproof clothing, yeah, but that's an extra precaution. If it does happen, well either they're caught unlucky or call for help in time.

It's not like we don't have armed officers, we do, you just need to be with the police for a verry long time to be one of those, but in most cases, they aren't needed when police are walking in the streets.

And if you're getting statistics, I'd rather you compare them to population and if the area is rural or not... It makes a difference.

 

[Thatguy71]

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but everything you are saying is your own oppinion. Look up your crime statistics. The UK's crime increased after banning guns to citizens. Same thing with Australia. Disarming citizens doesn't make crime go down, it only makes it easier for criminals to do what ever they want to you. People with guns don't go robbing children with ipods. People who purchase thier guns legally follow laws. Again criminals who shouldn't have the gun in the first place allready have them they don't follow laws. It doesn't make sense to take them away from law abiding citizens.

 

[Frogger]

Deary! The point in this thread was a debate, I in fact, asked for everyone's opinion on the matter, there is no right or wrong way of doing this, I just think the UK has a slightly better way which I much prefer to other countries.

And yeah, compared to the US gun crimes, we're so much better off.

 

[Sparx]

You gotta have a gun in Kennesaw? Or what?? They'll put you in jail?

Wow...what retards.

 

[sremick]

Knowing people were allowed to have guns, I wouldn't freaking walk outside, or in the dark.

Because a gun is the only way a girl can be assaulted? People here are allowed to have guns, and nobody I know is afraid to walk outside or in the dark. Even in the cities.

If someone wants to assault you, they will do so. The question is: how will you protect yourself?

And if you're getting statistics, I'd rather you compare them to population and if the area is rural or not... It makes a difference.

Yes, and those figures are based upon population: crimes per 1000 people. It says so right on the chart.

Here's another one:
"Gun Control Still Failing in UK - Murder Rates Skyrocketing
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001213.php

From that article:

Perhaps a much better (and longer) read that sums it up nicely:

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Snippets from the article:
"In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them."

"Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police."

 

[rukus]

guns dont kill people. they just make it pretty easy.

 

[Sparx]

He's right..

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...guns just make it easier.

 

[sremick]

You know what else makes killing other people easier? Knives, matches, lighters, cars, alcohol, tobacco, airplanes, baseball bats, and even screwdrivers:

Man gets 20 years for screw-driver robbery
http://www.topix.com/city/edwardsvi...le-man-gets-20-years-for-screw-driver-robbery

Someone who wants to kill someone is going to do so, guns or no guns.

Murder existed and was quite popular long before the gun was invented. Placing so much blame on the object and not the person is not only idiocy, but counter-productive as it distracts attention from the real problem: the criminal who has no regard for civilized society, others' rights, or human life.

 

[Sparx]

But guns just makes it easier, therefore increasing the number of deaths each day.

 

[sremick]

But guns just makes it easier, therefore increasing the number of deaths each day.

Guns also make it easier to stay alive in the face of an aggressor, deterring violence and decreasing the number of deaths each day.

Where is the evidence to support your claim? The stats I keep finding (and presenting here) support my side. Your theory might work in a simplified ideal world, but in reality the situation is a lot more-complicated and the real-world experiments of trying both versions have proven that a society where the average citizen is free to own guns is safer than one that tries to limit/ban them.

 

[Sparx]

Umm..I don't think I'm taking this thread as serouisly as you are..-.-

 

[LevesqueIsKing]

I think its very difficult to take a legitimate stand on this subject without having firsthand experience. The current me thinks that owning guns is not a necessity and is too cheap to buy one, but what about the me down the road that is robbed for everything I'm worth?

In general, I think that having a taser would be a better solution because no one is dying over your actions. Then again, a ~beast~ acquantace of mine took three tasers from the cops before going down. That's some inspiring **** right there.

 

[HyPeRsHoCk]

3 tasers? I don't think so.