Why guns are good, why guns are bad.

You were probably expecting to find a list of why I think guns are good and why I think guns are bad. But I'm not going to make a list just now.

I want as many people as possible to tell me why guns should be banned. Then I will tell you why we can't ban them.

well I come from somewhere that currently doesn't allow it's public to carry guns, and I'm fairly glad of that.

1. I feel safer walking around knowing that the majority of people I pass on the street don't have the power to kill me from a distance.

2. Other people feel safer knowing that if they scream abuse at me from a passing car (it happens), that when I've had a few beers I'm not going to shoot them. Was actually in a situation last year involving a car load of lads, during which I managed to end up in a position where the driver experienced my fist in his face. Had I been armed he would have been dead - had we all been armed I'd have died soon after.

3. because we have a crime called unlawful possession of firearms, it means we can add that onto other crimes committed by people and give them longer sentances.

just a few to be going on with for now - I look forward to hearing your reasons against banning

Good, some good reasons, sound perfectly legitimate. Keep 'em coming, I want to hear more reasons.:happy:

I don't think guns should be banned.

Looking forward to your reasons why they shouldn't be banned.I got a feeling you have something up your sleeve.:happy:

however I can see that there is a huge difference between not letting a country that doesn't currently have guns, have them - and taking guns away from a country that has had them a long time.

I'm inclined to agree with you on that they can't be banned - too late for that. How are you going to ensure every single person gives up their arms? You can't

That's very true, you can't make everyone give up arms. Some people just won't do it. Anybody else? More reasons???

I'm going to post the reasons tomorrow, about this time. So everybody keep discussing this, I want an interesting read.

Actually, I'd be more inclined to have *handguns* banned from being carried by the general public...They're small enough to be concealed & are more likely to be used in the heat of anger if carried by more people. However, official police forces & military shouldn't have the same levels of restrictions as the general civilian public would.

Guns as large as (non-automatic) rifles or shotguns shouldn't have nearly as many restrictions, because it's d@mn near impossible to conceal easily, especially if you tried to caryy it around with you on a daily basis.

The Constitutional right to bear arms was originally meant for the citizens to be able to protect themselves in case of an invasion...Either a foreign invasion or an invasion perpetrated by our own government...

Absolutely correct, M-D, which means the government does not have the right to ban or restrict them in any way. And, considering the drastic change in society the last many decades, to where someone can live in the city an entire lifetime without ever leaving, I say it is wrong that ordinances can be passed banning or restricting them in a city.

The firearm isn't the danger, our lack of discipline and degradation of our culture is the danger. Guns aren't dangerous, but stupid people with guns are!

well put tom, i currently own over 150 guns of all shapes and sizes. i have never used one in a fashion that has endangered anyone. it was because as a child my father taught me the correct use, carry, and storage of a firearm. it is all about the education of firearms owners and the proper use of said firearm. banning them will not remove them from the hands of people that would use them for evil. i personally feel safer knowing that i can carry my gun to protect myself and the ones that i love from the hooligans that would use them for other purposes.

i frown upon the banning of guns, however i would not object to a mandatory safety class. whether it be yearly, or whatever. firearms are a part of american culture, and to take them away would be unconstitutional.

[Edited on 3/1/2003 by AegisFang]

:poed: the only reasons why weapons are made is for murder and desctruction.

You don't need weapons when you don't want to kill.

Seems logical to me.

Living in a universe where bad people don't exist and governments aren't liable to go tyrannical, sure, Alienaddicted, that would be logical.

On this planet, though....

The firearm isn't the danger, our lack of discipline and degradation of our culture is the danger. Guns aren't dangerous, but stupid people with guns are!

I agree with you. Look this is how I see it. If somebody really wants to kill another human being, gun or no gun, he's probably going to do it anyway they can. The gun just makes things easier.

[Edited on 1-3-2003 by Ocelot]

[Edited on 1-3-2003 by Ocelot]

Absolutely. And they make it easier for the weaker to defend themselves from the rogues, as anyone who tries to mug my wife might find out if they aren't quick enough.

And me? I'm too lazy to physically fight, but that laziness also prevents me from wanting to clean the revolver after use, so I'd probably just club the moron with it and go about my day.
And the paperwork. And having to deal with the cops. Yup. Pistol whipping would be my choice.

I would just like to point out a few facts:

In Florida, when the Concealed Carry Law was enacted, anti-gunners predicted it would revert to the wild west, IE, gunfights in the street. That didnt happen. As a matter of fact, the crime rates went DOWN.

In Texas, when the Concealed Handgun Law was enacted, approximately 3/4 of the applicants for the first year were women. In the first year, the incidence of rape in Texas fell by over 50%.

In Kennesaw Georgia, local ordinance requires every household to own a firearm and ammunition. The local law enforcement in Kennesaw cannot remember the last time a violent crime took place inside the city limits.

In England, where firearms were already heavily restricted, and now it is virtually impossible to own a handgun, and is getting that way with rifles and shotguns. Even for the few in England who lawfully possess firearms, in the event that they were to use them for self defense, even if they were facing the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, to do so would, in the eyes of the British law enforcement, make them murderers. Also, in England, where very strict gun control has sway, the rate of gang related shooting is increasing expoentially each year.

The American cities (New York City, Chicago, Las Angles, and Washington DC) with the heaviest and strictest gun control laws are also the cities with the highest crime rates.

Hey, makes sense to me....

IN some areas of los-angeles, tenager death rate is highter than during vietnam.
Social cases, paranoid or skyzofrenic are necessary dangerous with guns : They aren't toys.

In France, guns aren't totally forbidden : Peoples can buy some rifle to hunt (recently a political responsible of corsica had been killed with a savage pig rifle).
But to buy or have a gun, you need to have a license, to have no jurical problems and to be in a gunsport association.

But reality is not the same : in Paris or Marseille you can easily find guns, AK-47... 3 days ago, a funds truck had been attacked by gansters equiped with a rocket launcher !

I know what is your argument to defend weapons.
The crime is in human nature and to defend from it is a need...

Me, I think that, like when USSR and USA build missiles to be the vest weoponed, production of guns is dangerous for peoples : Most of the old gun or the guns confiqued by police are destroyed, I know. But a part of these weapons are selled to 3rd world peoples. It's these weapons that equips ALQAEDA or FATAH CR or IVORY COAST rebels...


[Edited on 2-3-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

And your point, Nans? In some parts of the world, machetes and clubs are the preferred weapons with which to hack and bludgeon people of other tribes or beliefs. Sounds like a societal problem, not a weapons banning need.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
And your point, Nans? In some parts of the world, machetes and clubs are the preferred weapons with which to hack and bludgeon people of other tribes or beliefs. Sounds like a societal problem, not a weapons banning need.

It's the control of weapons the problem. Peoples goin out of jail or peoples with drug or minds problems shouldn't have the rights to by weapons.

And I'm gonna talk like a FBI profiler but It's not the same person who will kill with a gun, a matchete or a club... And I think that a gun make act easier, in particulat for teenagers.


[Edited on 2-3-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

[Edited on 2-3-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

I live in the midwest of the United States. I grew up in Detroit Michigan (actually a suburb outside of Detroit). My neighborhood was not that nice, a pretty poor section actually. I know some of you are thinking that this is the part where Arcangel says that they needed a gun to thwart the bad guys or for home defence, etc. Well I am not. Because never once did we have a problem that a call to the good ole police couldn't handle. However, when I moved out on my own, I had a facination with the military and weapons. Honestly, I love weapons. I have multiple handguns, shotguns, knives you name it. But you know what? If a break in did occur, You know whats within easy reach? a m18L air Taser. That's right a non-lethal weapon. (well... also a Sig Sauer 2340 .40 caliber w/ corbon loads.. I am not stupid LOL).

So in other words, over a hundred million americans own at least one fire arm. We are in a place where we cannot turn back. Most criminals carry weapons. An interesting point of fact, is that in Michigan if a criminal performs any crime and is caught, and he has a fire arm on him, whether or not s/he used it.. 2 years is automatically added to the sentence...

Any ways, no matter the opinion, no matter circumstance, hand guns are here to stay in the United States ... PERIOD

Here's two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A Madman carrying an ILLEGAL AK-47 walks into a store and starts unloading his clip into the crowd. The people panic and run around trying to find cover but can't get out of store. When the madman's clip runs out, he calmly reloads with a fresh clip and starts systematically excecuting people... kids...their parents... whoever. A women makes a break for the door and gets shot in the back. The people inside only hope is to pray that this man does not kill them and to wait till the police show up. END RESULT : Everyone in store is killed in store. 1 arrested madman.

Scenario 2: A madman with an ILLEGAL Ak-47 walks into a store and starts shooting into the crowd. 2 seconds later the crowd pulls out their handguns and kills the madman. Scenario Over. END RESULT: Sadly a few people are injured or killed. 1 DEAD madman

Which do you think is a better? When you take away handguns you take away a person's ability to defend themselves and their family. Like TC said their are bad people out there and the WILL get their hands on a weapon if they wanted one. The problem is, they want their weapon to KILL, MASSACRE, and ROB us... not for hunting or to defend his family, the reason for 99.9% of the legal gun purchases. For me I will feel safer among trained gun owners walking down the street than no gun owners and the 1 guy that carry's the illegal gun.

The people that are against guns are just setting everyone up to be Victims.

[Edited on 2-3-2003 by grunt_ignited]