Should americans keep the right to carry guns?

[Willieh]

@Golnax: You can't even put together a paragraph without having loads of grammar errors. Seriously' date=' stop trying to act superior.

 

On-Topic: I think the problem is how easy it is to get pistols (if this has already been stated earlier, please tell me in the next post). Pistols are really easy to hide. Thus they can be brought into all sorts of places without notice.

 

As for the DNA thing, I would have to agree with OMGAKITTY. It wouldn't stop criminals.

[/quote']

 

Limiting guns merely makes more criminals.

And it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people.

 

This is why you let the people keep their rights.

 

It's the same concept when it comes to drugs and which you declare is illegal.

 

The ones you declare is illegal you get more and more people doing it (some simply for the thrill of it all). You change the law and legalize it, the number suddenly drops.

 

I disagree.

 

I think that if you legalized drugs, the rate would suddenly increase dramatically because more people would sell drugs out in the open and more people would openly buy drugs.

[Static]

@Golnax: You can't even put together a paragraph without having loads of grammar errors. Seriously' date=' stop trying to act superior.

 

On-Topic: I think the problem is how easy it is to get pistols (if this has already been stated earlier, please tell me in the next post). Pistols are really easy to hide. Thus they can be brought into all sorts of places without notice.

 

As for the DNA thing, I would have to agree with OMGAKITTY. It wouldn't stop criminals.

[/quote']

 

Limiting guns merely makes more criminals.

And it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people.

 

This is why you let the people keep their rights.

 

It's the same concept when it comes to drugs and which you declare is illegal.

 

The ones you declare is illegal you get more and more people doing it (some simply for the thrill of it all). You change the law and legalize it, the number suddenly drops.

 

I disagree.

 

I think that if you legalized drugs, the rate would suddenly increase dramatically because more people would sell drugs out in the open and more people would openly buy drugs.

 

Studies in Europe show that drug use trends tend to go up and then they dwindle down to their lowest in recorded history after some years that the drug has been legal for.

[Skuldur]

@Golnax: You can't even put together a paragraph without having loads of grammar errors. Seriously' date=' stop trying to act superior.

 

On-Topic: I think the problem is how easy it is to get pistols (if this has already been stated earlier, please tell me in the next post). Pistols are really easy to hide. Thus they can be brought into all sorts of places without notice.

 

As for the DNA thing, I would have to agree with OMGAKITTY. It wouldn't stop criminals.

[/quote']

 

Limiting guns merely makes more criminals.

And it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people.

 

This is why you let the people keep their rights.

 

It's the same concept when it comes to drugs and which you declare is illegal.

 

The ones you declare is illegal you get more and more people doing it (some simply for the thrill of it all). You change the law and legalize it, the number suddenly drops.

 

I disagree.

 

I think that if you legalized drugs, the rate would suddenly increase dramatically because more people would sell drugs out in the open and more people would openly buy drugs.

 

It's the same with guns.

 

If you make it illegal for normal citizens to own eg. pistols, meaning only the police and army would own them. Deaths caused by guns would drop drastically.

[Static]

@Golnax: You can't even put together a paragraph without having loads of grammar errors. Seriously' date=' stop trying to act superior.

 

On-Topic: I think the problem is how easy it is to get pistols (if this has already been stated earlier, please tell me in the next post). Pistols are really easy to hide. Thus they can be brought into all sorts of places without notice.

 

As for the DNA thing, I would have to agree with OMGAKITTY. It wouldn't stop criminals.

[/quote']

 

Limiting guns merely makes more criminals.

And it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people.

 

This is why you let the people keep their rights.

 

It's the same concept when it comes to drugs and which you declare is illegal.

 

The ones you declare is illegal you get more and more people doing it (some simply for the thrill of it all). You change the law and legalize it, the number suddenly drops.

 

I disagree.

 

I think that if you legalized drugs, the rate would suddenly increase dramatically because more people would sell drugs out in the open and more people would openly buy drugs.

 

It's the same with guns.

 

If you make it illegal for normal citizens to own eg. pistols, meaning only the police and army would own them. Deaths caused by guns would drop drastically.

 

No no no, not what I said at all.

 

I said when they make it so that you CAN get drugs; drug use goes down.

 

Proof: Drug use in Holland after Marijuana was legalized. (Don't have a specific source, saw it on a documentary I don't remember the name of)

 

Gun deaths should go down once they are easier to obtain.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Crime rates go down when civilians are armed.

 

It's rather simple really:

Is a criminal more likely to strike in a setting with unarmed people, or in a setting with armed people?

 

The answer is in an unarmed setting. If everyone had guns, the minute a criminal tried to mug someone, the bystanders would all shoot him down.

 

 

If ALL the children at columbine had guns, the 2 gunmen would've been blasted the minute they started shooting people.

 

 

I can continue (in fact I did in posts much earlier in the topic), but the fact remains: Crime rates have been proven to drop drastically when the citizens are armed.

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and bring up another argument that will inevitably be made against this and shoot it down right here so we don't waste a page on it.

 

Examples are:

 

"You couldn't get your gun out of your bag if the criminal was trying to take it from you."

 

"They'd shoot you before you can load your weapon/shoot them."

 

Both seemingly valid arguments, correct?

 

Wrong. Arguments similar to this show a lack of knowledge on how to properly carry and utilize your firearm.

 

It should be in a holster on your belt, or in your coat pocket. It should be concealed (hence, a concealed weapons license is a must), and it should always be loaded.

 

This ensures that, if you need it, it'll be easily drawn and ready to fire.

 

 

There's also the "Statistics show that suicide rates increase with guns present, that more suicides are caused by guns, and that you're more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" argument.

 

The first 2 are misleading. Technically, they're right. Suicide rates do increase when guns are present, and more are caused by guns than anything else. However, there's a key word they leave out that allows them to say this. "Attempt".

 

First, let's cover the difference:

 

The Suicide Rate is how often someone actually kills themselves. As in, they're dead.

 

The Attempted Suicide Rate is how often someone tries to kill themselves. In other words, if someone shoots themselves and recovers, it's counted toward the attempt rate and not towards the actual suicide rate.

 

Now, here's why this difference is important. The presence of guns does NOT increase the attempt rate. People are not more likely to kill themselves when guns are around.

 

The reason the Suicide Rate is higher with guns, is because when someone does try to end their life, guns have a much higher chance of being fatal than say drug overdose. People try to kill themselves much more often via hanging or overdosing. Guns merely have a higher success rate, but do not raise the chances of someone attempting to kill themselves.

 

This sounds somewhat confusing, doesn't it?

 

Here's the bottom line:

That statement means that people are more likely to succeed if they use a gun.

What they want everyone to interpret it as, is that guns increase the chances of someone committing suicide.

 

Essentially it's a minor discrepancy in wording that changes what they're stating completely, yet it's commonly interpreted as guns increasing the attempt rate as well.

 

AKA, they're abusing a loophole to lie to people.

 

 

The 3rd fact is an outright lie. Simple as that.

[OMGAKITTY]

@Phoenix:

 

I guarantee that if every civilian were armed, over half of them would not know the proper way to fire/holster/clean their firearm. They would assume you just point and shoot like in the movies. You would have an increase in accidental shootings.

 

And increase in successful suicide attempts is still a bad thing XD

[Jericho]

And increase in successful suicide attempts is still a bad thing XD

 

And that's bad why?

 

Look. No matter what you theorize' date=' this is the reality. You can ban guns for civilians. But the muggers and rapists will still have guns because quite frankly they're muggers and rapist and won't care about gun laws.

[/quote']

 

I direct everyone to my previous statement.

[OMGAKITTY]

On most people's moral compass, letting someone kill themselves is not ok.

[Static]

On most people's moral compass' date=' letting someone kill themselves is not ok.

[/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure that this only applies to children. Actually, suicide is painted so dimly through talk of child suicide.

 

People should be able to kill themselves if they wish to; people should be allowed to buy the guns to do so if they wish to. At least they don't have to suffer the pain in the process of dying that virtually every other method of suicide results in.

[Zimiri of the Muse]

yes just not shoot them

[Красивая Ведьма]

Ok, the sorry fact is no matter what people are going to acquire weapons. Criminals can get them from other countries easily, especially Mexico. So, taking away guns would just make it impossible for the law abiding citizens to have protection, and criminals have weapons. So, it will increase the crime rate, and gun smuggling will reach an all-time high. Think of a new fire armed style of prohibition.

[Felix Culpa]

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms.

 

Proof enough.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

@Phoenix:

 

I guarantee that if every civilian were armed' date=' over half of them would not know the proper way to fire/holster/clean their firearm. They would assume you just point and shoot like in the movies. You would have an increase in accidental shootings.

[i']Marksmanship lessons. Make it a class in school. And it should be a required course to pass.[/i]

 

And increase in successful suicide attempts is still a bad thing XD

You either completely missed the point, or you ignored it and threw out this feeble defense. The point is this: the argument that guns cause people to commit suicides is about as solid as vapor. They merely change one word in their "facts" so that it's technically true, yet interpreted (not to mention heavily implied) as something else that is false.

The suicide rate doesn't matter. The only time it's a concern is when it raises directly as a result of the attempt rate, and even then, the attempt rate is the important statistic. Are you going to sit down and fix the problem by giving people less lethal ways to kill themselves, or by stopping them from trying? If you're going to stand by the suicide rate (not attempt rate) as being the real issue, then shouldn't you be off crusading against cars and trains? Getting run over by those would have a much higher chance of being fatal than a gunshot wound. I half expect you to point out that those are bad examples, because they don't happen as often as others and that they don't inspire people to commit suicide (thus, not affecting the attempt rate). If you do, then I'd like to preemptively thank you for agreeing with my argument, because I'm making the same point about guns.

[Tabris]

Didn't read whole topic - too time-consumin' as it is.

 

Deh problem here lies in the guns - have Americans buy guns as kids buy candy, and you might have an increase in shootings with them registered firearms.

 

On the other hand, ban guns and it'd be like America after Prohibition, with everyone clamorin' for a gun for whatever reason.

 

No fuckin' win.

[Static]

Didn't read whole topic - too time-consumin' as it is.

 

Deh problem here lies in the guns - have Americans buy guns as kids buy candy' date=' and you might have an increase in shootings with them registered firearms.

 

On the other hand, ban guns and it'd be like America after Prohibition, with everyone clamorin' for a gun for whatever reason.

 

No fuckin' win.

[/quote']

 

Actually, all around win.

 

People should have guns, in case your government decides to put you under Martial Law for an extended period of time and you need to buy groceries.

[Shradow]

Do you honestly think criminals will stop using guns if it were made illegal? Also, people would protest and stuff about the Bill or Rights being changed.

 

So I think we should keep the right to bear arms.

[Dark]

Not going to read all 11 pages, here is my opinion:

 

 

This is one of the reasons why America fails.

 

Key words in bold.

 

We watched a film about this in our PL lesson.

 

Living in the UK' date=' I'm wondering why the hell you're allowed guns anyway. I know you need a license, but the fact that they're obtainable is why the country has so much crime.

[/quote']

 

That's exactly my point.

 

I understand that guns are used for safety, and those fatass idiots who hunt things (and subsequently get killed by what they were hunting), and we need a license for them. That's all well and good. Dandy, if I may say.

 

But getting a license isn't that hard. My dad could get a gun if he wanted to, lie and say it was for hunting purposes, and I could use his gun and go kill people. Fun, right?

 

By NOT allowing people to carry guns, we are increasing the safety of the USA. People (criminals) won't be able to have a gun. In turn, citizens will not need to carry a gun for safety.

 

Hunting will go down and endangered species won't be in danger any longer.

 

And if someone wants to rob your house, they won't find a gun in there they can threaten you with.

[PrometheusMFD]

Why are you debating this still?

You can not remove the right to bear arms from Americans. It is one of the checks that the founders of this country put in. History has shown that an armed populace is harder to invade or control than an unarmed populace (See WWII)

[Static]

MFD is right.

 

If we're not actually debating the issue, and just talking "this is why America sux;" I'm not a big fan of the American system, but that isn't any way to actually settle the issue of allowing people to own guns.

 

And seriously, if you trust your military with guns, why shouldn't you trust your neighbor? If there is any other person alive in the world who owns a gun, why shouldn't you?

[TheHuaHauh]

No offense, but if your friend took the measure to kill himself with a gun, I'm sure he would've took the measures to kill himself any other way. When a man purchases a gun what he does with that gun is not reflected upon the vendor of said gun, he still has an incentive to do whatever he would do.- Whatever the person who has purchased the gun with is under his or her own discretion upon whatever they do with the gun. Therefore, if someone has the urge to finish something with a gun, they will have the urge to finish it any other way. Not to mention, most criminals don't even buy their guns from legal vendors, they don't want the gun to be traced to a store where they will surely be found, this is why gun crime prevails today. The Black Market is the usual place that you will find a murderer going to purchase his or her weapon, not a redneck-hillbilly hunting store.

 

By the way, Dªrĸ: I have multiple objections to your theories. Back in Theodore Roosevelt's early years as president, when he was still out and about, hunting and adventuring, he found a large population of giant mule deer living in Arizona that was hunted by locals and statewide hunters in and around the area. Seeing that this beautiful population of deer should be untouched, Roosevelt made a reserve around the animals' home area. Nearly three years later the population was extinct. There is a difference between hunters and poachers. Hunters help preserve animals by keeping population counts down and by helping promote growth in forgotten areas in the environment by eliminating small percentages of the larger areas; the reason we have a set bag limit is so that we may hunt and help the environment. Now, poachers, poachers basically go out into the woods or whatever area they would like to "hunt" in. They kill as many animals as they want, ignoring local laws and hunt during mating seasons when breeding is expected to help build a population for the new season. By the way, I have a lot of family from the UK (Brit Mom), they own guns for hunting. I also hunt, so I would prefer that you refer to hunters as something a little bit more appropriate than "those fatass idiots who hunt things".

[Wuu.]

If your friend wanted to commit suicide' date=' then fine. It's his own life.

 

Making guns illegal won't solve anything, people will still get their hands on guns; or find new ways to kill.

 

Oh, and thinks about this, does your idea include ALL americans? Even the ones who work for the police?

[/quote']

 

^This

If guns should become illegal there would be a whole shitload of undergound shops that will be selling them. Don't you dare think the ghetto's in america will listen to guns being illegal, they would just start to kill more.

Right to carry guns is the one thing that makes made the economy in america.

[Atomix]

If America declaired all guns to be handed to the goverement, it will start the biggest civil war ever. Just saying....

[PrometheusMFD]

The right to bear arms was given to us to combat an oppressive government. The second a military police is established, it is the rights of the citizens to combat them to maintain freedom.

[OMGAKITTY]

hay guise i think gunz r bad bcuz they kill ppl n thats bad.

 

 

Ever hear of "Prohibition"?

Yeah, that worked out real well.