The right to keep and bear arms

[George]

Guns have a piratical purpose. Self defense.

[fluffymoochicken]

Guns have a piratical purpose.

"Piratical" - In other words, a criminal purpose. Good job.

Hey Sanus! I decided to beat you to Google, and found some drowning vs. gun fatality statistics for 2004:

In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html

   *  Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
    * Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource ... statistics


What's this? Sanus not knowing what he's talking about? Imagine that.

[MadeManG74]

First time criminals with no police record can legally get themselves a gun and then go out to rob a shop and murder the clerk while they're at it. That's a sad fact about our country.

Do you know how often a crime like that is done with a legally bought gun though? A criminal would have to be incredibly dumb to buy a gun legitimately and then commit a crime with it. From what I understand you can match bullets to the rifling of a gun barrell, and if not, Police could run checks on all guns of that caliber bought in the last week/month whatever and then investigate based on that.

Lets say even IF that wasn't possible and the man had no access to a legally bought gun, he could buy one on the black market, and I would imagine that's where most guns used in crimes are acquired. Making guns illegal wouldn't change their availability.

I think the biggest problem with legally bought guns would be domestic violence and the like, or crimes of passion/mistaken identity etc, which is why I think Austarlia's laws regarding storage, inspections and background checks to be adequate. And once again, if it's a 'spur of the moment' crime that is caused by rage or something, then I imagine a stabbing or something would be just as likely if they didn't have access to guns.

Now finally, I do think there should be restrictions on the types of guns people can own. I don't think Semi-automatic and full-automatic weapons have any place in homes. They are totally unnessary for hunting and sports/recreation, and unless you're fucking Tony Montana, I doubt you'll need a gun like that for home defense (I don't think having guns for home defense is a good idea in the first place though, another reason I support Australian laws demanding a justification of sport/recreational shooting).

Also I'm going to split these posts into another topic, thanks to everyone for keeping insults to a minimum, I know this sort of discussion can get heated.

[fluffymoochicken]

Alright, I actually shouldn't be spending soooo much time in an internet argument right now, so I'll have to reply to that later this morning or when I wake up in the evening.

Thank you for being rational as well, MadeMan.

[George]

I mean't practical.

[Sharky]

I hate this argument because if you try and apply any logic to the situation there’s always some inbred redneck there to try and belittle you for using common sense and not saying
'YEAHH GUNS!!!!'

No guns do not cause violence, yes violent people do. But if guns are too easy to get a hold of it's like giving violent people the ability to be violent. Yes you could argue that they could use a knife but I think people would be far less inclined to try and walk around a school killing kids with a knife... Chances are that wouldn't work out very well.

You can get guns in Europe, but you need licenses, background checks and all sorts. The problem with some places including America is that it is far to easy for someone that IS a violent dipshit to get hold of a gun.

[MadeManG74]

I hate this argument because if you try and apply any logic to the situation there’s always some inbred redneck there to try and belittle you for using common sense and not saying
'YEAHH GUNS!!!!'

Nobody has said or acted anything like that in this thread, have you read it yet? Serious question, since we've actually been very civilised and have been backing up our arguments, you might find it interesting.

You can get guns in Europe, but you need licenses, background checks and all sorts. The problem with some places including America is that it is far to easy for someone that IS a violent dipshit to get hold of a gun.

The problem is (at least in Australia) 85% plus of those people get their guns on the black market anyway, so banning guns wouldn't stop those crimes at all.

I know, I know, wikipedia, but check the sources if you don't believe it, it's all cited.

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia. Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies. The majority of firearm related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of 'hunting rifles'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


Again, I am not in favour of stuff like Machine Pistols being available, but I think that there is no problem with owning a gun for sport and recreational use with the correct restrictions in place.

[max_cady]

You could also get a gun with much less hassle in the black market, where you don't need any identification or paper trail, which would render all gun restrictions and checks entirely pointless.

Surprisingly, Bush's concealed fire-Arm policy did de-motivate people from being agressive. Imagine if you're a violent hick, which would be a better target for your killing spree: a gun-free zone or a place where people carry concealed fire arms?

Washington DC is a gun free zone and nobody feels any safer because of that.

[Sharky]

Nobody has said or acted anything like that in this thread, have you read it yet? Serious question, since we've actually been very civilised and have been backing up our arguments, you might find it interesting.

I've read the thread and I'm not talking about the thread I'm talking about this debate on the internet in general.

The problem is (at least in Australia) 85% plus of those people get their guns on the black market anyway, so banning guns wouldn't stop those crimes at all.

I know, I know, wikipedia, but check the sources if you don't believe it, it's all cited.

I'm talking spesifically about kids shooting up schools.
I seriously doubt many if ANY kids that have shot up schools have baught their guns on the black market. They probably use their families 'defence' gun or hunting gun...  Why can they even get a hold of it? It should be locked away in a safe away from emo teenagers.

Again, I am not in favour of stuff like Machine Pistols being available, but I think that there is no problem with owning a gun for sport and recreational use with the correct restrictions in place.

I agree... but some people are far to stupid to own a weapon even for that. Which is why I said it's to easy to get hold of a gun in America and other places. When you can walk into a shop and buy a gun off the shelf then you are asking for trouble.

[max_cady]

School shootings are somewhat of a new phenomenon, unheard of at least before the 90's. Schools and collegue campuses are mostly gun free zones, enforced by policies that were enforced around those times.

Which makes them easy prey to psychos like the two chaps who did the Columbine massacre.

Or the recent Virginia Tech massacre done by that asian student.

I was also surprised to learn that the soldiers in bases are mostly unharmed, especially on the Fort Hood shooting massacre last year.

Military bases can be fixed. But school shooting is a much more delicate situation.

We don't know what goes on in the mind of a troubled youth, but there are telling signs or other enablers.

But a touchy subject, this is...

[Barry the Nomad]

All I have to say is that guns should be legal, but heavily enforced. Living in Philly, it seems like somebody is shot everyday by some dumbfuck who obtained a gun illegally.

As for owning guns for home protection, I think people should first undergo training before thinking a loaded gun next to your bed is safe. Not sure what the official safe way of going about it would be, but at the very least have it unloaded inside a locked drawer with one round of ammo. That way little Billy won't blow his face off when looking through his parents bedroom.

[Emmett The Crab]

This debate pre-dates the internet, and the second amendment implies that if you are going to have a militia, then no one can take away your guns.  We have no militia, but we just have guns and use that amendment as an excuse.  You rarely hear a pro-gun person saying, "a well organized militia is necessary."  The militia is necessary if you don't have an army and the British are coming.  

It's not just about crime and aggression.  There are tons of accidental deaths as well.  Everyone uses that knife argument, that if we ban guns, then we should ban knives too, but it's rare that someone accidentally kills themselves or other people with a knife. It takes work most of the time to kill with a knife.

Also, if you have a gun for self defense, statistically you are more likely to be shot than if you don't have one, so calling that a practical purpose is a little dubious.  The average person finds themselves unable to shoot, and the panicky criminal takes their gun away from them and shoots them with it.  Everyone that hears about this says "not me" but you don't really know if you could kill a person until you have to.

I've never touched a gun, and I used to feel very strongly that we shouldn't have them, but it's a waste of breath.  It's like trying to bring prohibition back.  Really we need to heavily regulate the safety of these things.  Parents should be put in prison if their kids can take their guns easily and shoot themselves or other kids with them.

[SufferLikeGDid]

The problem is (at least in Australia) 85% plus of those people get their guns on the black market anyway, so banning guns wouldn't stop those crimes at all.

This goes for America as well but a lot of people like to point the finger at all gun owners which is very upsetting.

[Sega Uranus]

Guns have a piratical purpose.

"Piratical" - In other words, a criminal purpose. Good job.

Hey Sanus! I decided to beat you to Google, and found some drowning vs. gun fatality statistics for 2004:

In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html

   *  Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
    * Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource ... statistics


What's this? Sanus not knowing what he's talking about? Imagine that.

I was not here when you responded to it, so yeah.

But that is neat you just googled some random list of a random year, that makes sense. Did you just pick any year or find a specific one? Another good Sonic Team-level job you have done! I highly doubt more people in the world have died from bullets than water, considering it probably predates guns.

It is just in my soul that water has killed more people than guns have, and if you do not understand that then it is just your fault.

[Sharky]

Guns have a piratical purpose.

"Piratical" - In other words, a criminal purpose. Good job.

Hey Sanus! I decided to beat you to Google, and found some drowning vs. gun fatality statistics for 2004:

In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html

   *  Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
    * Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource ... statistics


What's this? Sanus not knowing what he's talking about? Imagine that.

I was not here when you responded to it, so yeah.

But that is neat you just googled some random list of a random year, that makes sense. Did you just pick any year or find a specific one? Another good Sonic Team-level job you have done! I highly doubt more people in the world have died from bullets than water, considering it probably predates guns.

It is just in my soul that water has killed more people than guns have, and if you do not understand that then it is just your fault.

You just mooted your entire argument. Water pre-dates guns so your argument is unfair.

He may have picked a random year but I doubt the statistics change THAT much year on year since 2004.

Also, I Emmett raises some good points.