Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Jedi-Hunter4]

You know, some things are actually black and white. Sorry about that. But it's the truth.

Denying the fact that anti-gunners want ALL guns taken away, and the government is more than happy to oblige, well, that's deceit. Every anti-gunner KNOWS as much. There is no thing is an anti-gun lobbyist who believes owning a gun is acceptable in any way.

Black and white. That simple.

Hang on a second, I'm anti-gun. I did rifle shooting in the Cadets when I was growing up and was quite good, my grandfather owned shot guns as he was a farmer. As an adult I have done pistol shooting abroad with magnums, glock's Beretta's etc and really enjoyed it. I enjoy using guns and the satisfaction of honing your skills can bring on the practice range.

But I am 100% against private gun ownership for 95% of individuals. Where there is a practical use for a lively hood like pest control, or safety from dangerous wildlife in rural areas, double barrel shot gun licenses should be allowed, but regulated and monitored. Want to do range shooting, no problem join a range club, leave your gun there under lock and key with all your ammunition.

So there you go I enjoy guns, I respect guns power, if I lived in a country that allowed gun ownership wide speard I would probably own one. But I recognize that my enjoyment and easy of access to a weapon would also allow dangerous individuals access to weapons. Thus my enjoyment of its use is not justified at the expense overall of people's safety.

I've stated what I would consider acceptable gun ownership and I'm anti-gun for private gun ownership, so congratulations on your sweeping statements.

 

[Jayemsal]

I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.

Fascinating.

But what about the massive spike in hammer and plastic bag murders?

Surely those are dangerous, as Fox News has told me.

 

[tmande2nd]

Uhm..the only gun I own is a Pellet Gun that cant even kill anything beyond a gopher.

In Canada at least you are not guaranteed to own guns really. Besides you are more likely to be killed by a knife then a gun up here anyway...at least that was true when I last cared to look at the stats.

In America? Say hello to every militia attacking the government for their tyranny.
Guns are a right in America to militias and they wont give them up without a fight.

No President is so stupid to do that.

 

[Strazdas]

I would be pretty pissed off to see my collection of WW2 firearms thrown into the smelter. If such a law were passed there is no way anyone would be getting any compensation, I would expect $3000 alone. I would probably get them all deactivated before I would let the mounties take them, history deserves to be preserved. However, collecting these old relics would be far less interesting if I couldn't take them to range once in a while.

there is a difference between historical collections and having 10 brand new guns "because someone else who also has 10 bran new guns may try to shoot me"

I am not really sure if I understand your point. Do you mean that people who collect many old firearms are more justified to do so than those who own many modern models? In terms of some sort of potential danger to the public there is objectively little difference between a "historical collection" of old guns vs an "arsenal" of new guns.

What i mean, is that a person whose intention for owning a firearm is to collect historical pieces for history purpose is more justifiable than owning a weapon "to shoot stuff".

 

[Macgyvercas]

"To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens"
~Adolf Hitler

With that, and the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America...I'm keeping my guns.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
Snopes says no.

ON top of that, I seriously do not understand why yanks fetishise the constitution and the nation's founders.

I mean what would you think if I were to post something like this

'Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. '
~Adolf Hitler

With that, and the Commonwealth Franchise act of 1902... I'm not letting aboriginals vote"

Because, see, I can quote Hitler in an irrelevant context and quote out of date laws to back up my nonsense points too.

Touche. But the point is, I'm not surrendering my guns. I enjoy target shooting and hunting, and quite frankly I'd prefer to be ready when the zombies strike (yes, I know that last point invalidates my whole argument, but shut up, I'm allowed to prepare anyway).

And the biggest problem I see with a law banning guns is this: Since when do criminals follow laws. If I as a law abiding citizen give up my guns, that leaves me unprotected from a lawbreaker who didn't or who got a hold of some (because you kn ow they can, do, and will).

 

[Mikeyfell]

Well you see this is the kind of thing that the framers of the constitution Didn't want to have happen.

You remember that amendment... The Second fucking one!
And part of the actual body of the constitution that says if the government gets too power-hungry (You know by say... IGNORING the second fucking amendment) that the citizens are allowed and encouraged to rebel.

I mean this is also coming from the same people who said all men are created equal, except for Native American Indians, Because we want all of something they're willing to share, Blacks, because manual labor is hard, and women because KITCHEN!

But hey, is it not the most American of principles to only acknowledge the parts of something that support you're myopic view of things?

So yeah if somebody tries to take my guns away they will have to take them one bullet at a time.

 

[Dark_Reaction]

I find it incredibly amusing/depressing that so many people have utterly lost track of the meaning behind the 2nd amendment and the basis upon which it was created.


Do you own a gun? No? Okay then, you're effectively useless if the government/military were to ever turn against the citizenry (something we'd like to pretend can't/won't happen, but which history will prove is entirely possible, and in fact more than likely to occur given a long enough time frame), unless one of your fellow citizens feels particularly 'neighborly' and decides to provide you a weapon.

Do you own a non-military grade gun? Yes? Okay then, you're slightly less useless if the aforementioned scenario were to come to pass - your varmint rifle, shotgun or handgun will prove useful, however it is unlikely to pose all that great a threat to properly trained/equipped individuals intent on ending your life.

Do you own a military grade gun, often referred to as an 'assault rifle'? Yes? CONGRATULATIONS! You're actually pretty capable of defending (on even ground) yourself, your loved ones and the very land upon which you dwell in the event of the aforementioned scenario coming to pass!... Granted, you're utterly lacking in the true military hardware of this generation (UAV's, large-scale assault vehicles, etc), but at the very least you're upholding the ideals set forth by the founders of this country - who were so 'inspired' by the efforts towards gun-control of the tyrannical far-away government attempting to oppress them during their time, that they included citizen's access to armaments in the document that would prove paramount to governmental concerns in this country in years to come.

... Unfortunately, you're going to receive a more-than-fair share of sideways glances and whispered implications of your mental state being questionable, as apparently no less than 80% of the U.S. population has fooled themselves into believing their comfy existence could neeeeeeever be threatened by anything as trivial as a foreign invasion, home-invasion undertaken by a powerful criminal organization, military coup or the appearance of a charismatic leader of questionable moral/ethical intent with regards to the treatment of some/all of the citizenry.

A rather clear example of the downward spiral into which the US populace has fallen:
During the revolution, people were driven to fight, even if their weapons were sub-par, out of courage.
These days, people are so afraid to fight and/or to be grouped in with those few mentally unstable folks who use their weapons against the citizenry, they're willing to throw away their very right to own on-par weaponry, out of fear.

 

[Raytan941]

Every individual has their own breaking point or point of no return or whatever euphemism you want to use, I prefer line in the sand, but whatever you call it it's basically the point were you choose action over inaction. For instance it's 3AM your trying to sleep but your neighbor has been blasting loud music for hours, you tried to ignore it and sleep anyway but you have finally decided that enough is enough a line has been crossed the time for inaction is over the time to do something about it has come. Everyone's line in the sand is and reaction once it is crossed will differ, some people may choose to ignore the loud music for many more hours or even days, some may choose to take action immediately, some people may choose to confront the neighbor directly others may choose to call police and file a noise complaint.

What I find interesting is most people don't know where their line is on any given subject until that line has been crossed. I think people need to sit down and really give some thought about what they are willing to let happen to themselves, their family and loved ones and even strangers before they choose to do something about it. If you see someone robbing a stranger do you act or do nothing? How about if they are attacking that person? Or attempting to rape that person or even kill that person, how about if that person is your best friend or your wife or yourself? When do you act, where is your line?

When it comes to the hypothetical situation proposed by the OP I know where my line in the sand is. Lets say the government chooses to ignore the 2nd amendment and pass's a law that enacts a full gun ban's and mandatory gun turn in's and confiscation. Firstly I would vehemently oppose such a law by writing and calling all my elected officials and I would seek out all legal avenues available to me to get such a law overturned. Secondly I would remind elected officials, police officers and active or ex-military that they all swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic and that it is their responsibility and duty to ignore any order they are giving that violates that oath. And finally if it came down too it and had done everything in my power to resist such an unjust law without resorting to force. I have corrupt officials of a corrupt and tyrannical government beating on my door demanding under threat of force and/or imprisonment that I surrender my possessions, freedom and life then there is my line in the sand that far and no further.

 

[JochemHippie]

Something I just realized about this subject is if those certain laws indeed pass is that people supporting certain weaponry will be banned xD

Anywho
OT:
Sell mine in Germany ofcourse. Not really an offense you want to be taken for over here..

 

[Dense_Electric]

I am utterly disgusted by the number of people who would simply hand them over. I'd like to motion that if you don't actually own a firearm of some kind, you don't vote in this thread.

As for my answer, that depends. I would, at gunpoint, instruct anyone sent to relieve me of my firearm to leave my property. If they did so peacefully, that would be that. If they pulled a gun on me, or attempted to use violence to take my gun, I wouldn't have any qualms about pulling the trigger. "Kill" is a little harsh, as the intent is not to kill the person, but to defend myself and my right to own a firearm. If they don't want to run that risk, they can leave my property peacefully.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I am utterly disgusted by the number of people who would simply hand them over. I'd like to motion that if you don't actually own a firearm of some kind, you don't vote in this thread.

As for my answer, that depends. I would, at gunpoint, instruct anyone sent to relieve me of my firearm to leave my property. If they did so peacefully, that would be that. If they pulled a gun on me, or attempted to use violence to take my gun, I wouldn't have any qualms about pulling the trigger. "Kill" is a little harsh, as the intent is not to kill the person, but to defend myself and my right to own a firearm. If they don't want to run that risk, they can leave my property peacefully.

Lets say the government chooses to ignore the 2nd amendment and pass's a law that enacts a full gun ban's and mandatory gun turn in's and confiscation. Firstly I would vehemently oppose such a law by writing and calling all my elected officials and I would seek out all legal avenues available to me to get such a law overturned. Secondly I would remind elected officials, police officers and active or ex-military that they all swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic and that it is their responsibility and duty to ignore any order they are giving that violates that oath. And finally if it came down too it and had done everything in my power to resist such an unjust law without resorting to force. I have corrupt officials of a corrupt and tyrannical government beating on my door demanding under threat of force and/or imprisonment that I surrender my possessions, freedom and life then there is my line in the sand that far and no further.

I don't know the ins and outs of us law but by the definition of "amendment". I think its safe to assume that this right to bear arms was brought in? so I would be safe to assume there are routes, difficult ones but legal routes to repeal the 2nd amendment?

So if your publicly elected government, representatives of the people, choose to legally repeal that right, they are doing it because the people voted them in. how in any concept of the word does that make them corrupt in this situation?

And then you have stated if no one will listen to you, you will resist violently. You are the criminal there. In that situation you disagree with the law, that does not give you a right to possibly deprive a family of their loved one. If a law is brought in by a legally elected government and they do it through all the legal routes and you don't like it, renounce your citizenship and leave.

This is the exact kind of paranoia and power complex that scares the shit out of normal people the world over, that people like yourself have access to firearms which by your own admission your prepared to use in a lethal manner if you disagree with a legally brought in law, and people refuse to listen to your veiws.

What is it 90% of school shooters say "nobody listened to me"

 

[Ryotknife]

Why is it okay for you to tell us how things are in america, but we have to provide you with proof? I live here and I've lived in various locations throughout the country, there's very few reports that are going to tell you what its like on the street. You look up stats and try and disprove it if you don't believe me. I'm not an encyclopedia, why on earth am I going to trawl through stats when I live here and know what its like, why would I lie?

I can't agree with you that in a supposedly civilized 1st world country the only solution is to allow everyone to arm themselves and defend themselves "wild west" style. Some of the descriptions on here I think have been over hyped, but essentially come to "we live in mad max world, theres next to no police, if you don't have a gun you die, if you do have a gun, you maybe won't".

okay here you go from my own country, if i knew your country i would look it up instead of asking you to provide.

police response times:
http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html
http://www.wbez.org/story/chicago-police-response-time-down-2012-97137
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05/020512-news-detroit-vigilantes-1-5/
http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com/average-police-response-time.html

by the by, the average police response time in the nation is something like 10 minutes. In my case it is about 2 minutes, which is pretty dang good. However, if someone attacked me in my home (even without a gun), i will be dead for about a minute before the police could arrive.

population density:
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/catalog/national/html/Population.htmldir/USpop1990.html
(granted from 1990)

population diversity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

although they apparently count latinos and hispanics as white, which is kinda strange to me. Ah here we go "Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race." So latinos and hispanics are wild cards, but they make up about 13% of the population. So whites are at 60%. blacks are at 13%, latinos/hispanics 13%, asians 5%, native americans 1%, Pacific islander .2%, etc etc.

Also the Wild West was not as bad as Hollywood made it out to be. The Wild West would be an improvement crime wise.

"only thing proven to work around these problems inside the US" the US has never even tried tried a different system so how is it proven?

Yes, we have tried different ways in different states. Each State has their own rules and laws and different outlooks on many issues. Each state is their own mini-nation (hell they each have their own army). Some states and cities have implemented very strict gun control laws. Chicago banned handguns as well as the ability to conceal or open carry any weapon (well, until 2010 at least), and they have one of the worst if not the worst crime in the country.

"most of those problems are simply beyond our reach without implementing a police state." see my post about scaling down over 50 odd years, it could be done, we're not talking about a "ALL GUNS FROM TUESDAY ARE ILLEGAL, DEAL WITH IT BITCHES!!!" kind of address.

without dealing with those issues that i presented (which are not feasible) no even a 50 year or even a 5000 year timeperiod could not solve it. The only way it can be done is via police state.

"poverty" I read stats the other day that said the poorest 5% of Americans are richer than 85% of all Indian's. Americans don't know what true poverty is.

Hey, i completely agree with you. People in poverity here have it much better than in other countries. Unfortunately that means squat in the context of this conversation. People dont aspire to live in poverty, they aspire for something greater, making it in the world and whatnot. Among certain communities, crime is a commonly possible path to "making it" in the world, sometimes it is even glorified and idolized. That is a problem. Unfortunately this is kinda a chicken and the egg scenario in how it started. Part of the reason why this happens is because of the general poverity of that community, the other reason is that law enforcement is stricter on them. So this creates an infinite loop where crime is glorified and they are more likely to do so, law enforcement treats that community harsher because of so, and the community is pushed more towards crime/disrespect for law enforcement as an outlash to the prejudice, and so on and so forth. Niether side is willing to be the first to give ground either, even though both of their attitudes suck.

".since we can not stop or even stem the flow of illegal goods, banning guns or heavily restricting them is pointless" I simply CANNOT understand this kind of attitude for justifying everyone being armed. I'm just repeating myself over and over to different people. Admittedly there needs to be a whole host of changes to numerous attitudes laws and policing techniques. But america is no different than any other country. If you look at the European Union as a whole there is every single issue america has. Borders almost impossible to fully monitor, wide ethnic differences, stark differences in wealth. Religious tensions, drug and gang problems, people trafficking. And on top of that we have 2000 years of history of killing each other in various wars, the last one being within living memory. But gun violence is kept low, by a different policing attitude and strong regulated gun control.

I think we will just have to disagree, because frankly anybody who thinks the widespread ownership of guns is the way forward rather than anything but an outdated stagnate view from a bygone age, is not going to be convinced by reason. An unfortuantly its probably going to take allot more innocent people and children to die before action is done. The reasons everyone gets so up on the US for their gun control is because they have the power and the means to end the cycle, at some point someone is going to have to accept that the average american gun owners attitude to weapons is unhealthy and many people do not give them the respect they deserve. Arming everyone to the teeth and making it so very easy for criminals and those who should not own weapons, can not be justified that the police from the sounds of it are unable to protect individuals, vote for change, petition your politicians, restructure etc, there will never ever been any moving forward under the current system.

Even if guns were banned and the gun industry dismantled, guns will still easily find a way to criminals hands. Hell, there are plenty of foreign illegal guns. Automatic uzis are illegal and not made here, still find their way here.

Wide ethnic differences....HA. We have populations from every single country in the world under one roof. The entire human history of group grievances is at our unfortunate disposal. The fact that our country hasnt turned into a giant smoking crater because of what some A-hole did 1000 years ago in a DIFFERENT part of the world is a GD miracle in every sense of the word. Hell, it is baffling to americans that Europeans cant get along on an individual group basis oftentimes considering that in the US every European/white country from France to Russia is part of the same community here.

I regularly interact with blacks, latinos, asians, muslims, and indians on a day to day basis. And my city is less diverse than most places in the US.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Even if guns were banned and the gun industry dismantled, guns will still easily find a way to criminals hands. Hell, there are plenty of foreign illegal guns. Automatic uzis are illegal and not made here, still find their way here.

So do you think we should not ban owning landmines, dynamite, flamethrowers, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons? You can't stop people from getting those. I mean, where does this stop?

 

[Ryotknife]

Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.

I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.

All yours buddy. Use it well.

If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.

Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.

I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.

Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?

You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational

Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."

you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...

I will take the IRA, give them effing tanks and all the explosives they want, and STILL prefer them over the Cartels. The Cartels are nasty pieces of works. About the only good thing I can say about them is that they are businessmen, but if you get in their way they will kill you and your entire family just to make a point. Cartels are actually more dangerous than the terrorists who want to murder us, our only saving grace is that it doesnt make much sense to kill off your best customer (ie the US). But considering they have hundreds of officials bribed, blackmailed, or intimidated across both borders, their influence is immense.

Your IRA is closer to our Al Queda, and I still prefer the IRA to them. Bombings and mass murder is merely a tool for the IRA (at least that is how it seems to me, but im not in the UK so i may very well be wrong), it is not their endgoal. Mass murder and the destruction of the west is Al Qeuda's endgoal.

Al Qaeda are thousands of miles away from the United States and their acts were relatively few and far between. Don't forget the United Kingdom was also subject to a couple of Al Qaeda attacks. The IRA in their prime were easily more of a threat than Al Qaeda or the Cartels are to the United States. The Cartels thrive in Mexico - and while their influence DOES spread across the border, when's the last time you heard of a major, high profile Los Zetas attack? They don't happen. They're drug-runners and murderers but they're NOT an invading army.

Now you tell people over the age of forty that you would rather live with the threat of the IRA than in the situation you're in now. Why don't you ask people present at the Manchester bombings? Or even better, you could ask the police in Westminster why they have submachine guns. You live in an era of security where all the scary things are over the border. My country is no stranger to terrorism and violence, and yet as a culture we totally lack paranoia. Your government might take your guns away and you're in uproar. One of our party leaders tried to turn the country into a mirror image of Nazi Germany, and were the British angry? Not in the slightest. He was laughed at. Everything he tried to do was just mocked.

Your weapons and your media create a terrifying image of an America besieged on all sides by Arab terrorists and Mexican drug lords. As for being told to keep doors and windows locked? That's par for the course wherever you live. There are police bulletins all over the place in this country telling you to do it. It's nothing special.

Where I live, there's violence. There's a lot of violence. People get stabbed, mugged and beaten half to death every five minutes. I've had a few close encounters.

But I'm bloody glad there were no guns. Shoot and kill a mugger and I guarantee that won't be the last you hear of it. People with more guns and more bodies than you will want revenge, because that's how things get twisted. He just wanted your wallet but you took his life. You were in the wrong. Guns escalate violence.

Hah! Imagine Ireland with legal guns! Sorry. Read up on the Troubles. THEN imagine Ireland with guns. You'll see EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/more-will-die-mexico-drug-wars-claim-us-lives/

the cartels are directly responsibly for hundreds, if not thousands, of americans deaths per year. Indirectly, the are responsibly for many more as many drug related violence or deaths can be traced back to them.

 

[Thyunda]

Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.

I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.

All yours buddy. Use it well.

If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.

Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.

I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.

Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?

You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational

Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."

you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...

I will take the IRA, give them effing tanks and all the explosives they want, and STILL prefer them over the Cartels. The Cartels are nasty pieces of works. About the only good thing I can say about them is that they are businessmen, but if you get in their way they will kill you and your entire family just to make a point. Cartels are actually more dangerous than the terrorists who want to murder us, our only saving grace is that it doesnt make much sense to kill off your best customer (ie the US). But considering they have hundreds of officials bribed, blackmailed, or intimidated across both borders, their influence is immense.

Your IRA is closer to our Al Queda, and I still prefer the IRA to them. Bombings and mass murder is merely a tool for the IRA (at least that is how it seems to me, but im not in the UK so i may very well be wrong), it is not their endgoal. Mass murder and the destruction of the west is Al Qeuda's endgoal.

Al Qaeda are thousands of miles away from the United States and their acts were relatively few and far between. Don't forget the United Kingdom was also subject to a couple of Al Qaeda attacks. The IRA in their prime were easily more of a threat than Al Qaeda or the Cartels are to the United States. The Cartels thrive in Mexico - and while their influence DOES spread across the border, when's the last time you heard of a major, high profile Los Zetas attack? They don't happen. They're drug-runners and murderers but they're NOT an invading army.

Now you tell people over the age of forty that you would rather live with the threat of the IRA than in the situation you're in now. Why don't you ask people present at the Manchester bombings? Or even better, you could ask the police in Westminster why they have submachine guns. You live in an era of security where all the scary things are over the border. My country is no stranger to terrorism and violence, and yet as a culture we totally lack paranoia. Your government might take your guns away and you're in uproar. One of our party leaders tried to turn the country into a mirror image of Nazi Germany, and were the British angry? Not in the slightest. He was laughed at. Everything he tried to do was just mocked.

Your weapons and your media create a terrifying image of an America besieged on all sides by Arab terrorists and Mexican drug lords. As for being told to keep doors and windows locked? That's par for the course wherever you live. There are police bulletins all over the place in this country telling you to do it. It's nothing special.

Where I live, there's violence. There's a lot of violence. People get stabbed, mugged and beaten half to death every five minutes. I've had a few close encounters.

But I'm bloody glad there were no guns. Shoot and kill a mugger and I guarantee that won't be the last you hear of it. People with more guns and more bodies than you will want revenge, because that's how things get twisted. He just wanted your wallet but you took his life. You were in the wrong. Guns escalate violence.

Hah! Imagine Ireland with legal guns! Sorry. Read up on the Troubles. THEN imagine Ireland with guns. You'll see EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/more-will-die-mexico-drug-wars-claim-us-lives/

the cartels are directly responsibly for hundreds, if not thousands, of americans deaths per year. Indirectly, the are responsibly for many more as many drug related violence or deaths can be traced back to them.

"You have a lot of folks who are dual citizens, with some born in the U.S. but (who) live on the Mexico side," Scott Stewart, a vice president with the global intelligence firm STRATFOR, said of the difficulty in documenting American deaths connected to cartel violence. "A lot of them are working back and forth and some are working as gunmen too. And when someone like that dies, it is hard to know. Some simply disappear while others are lying in a vat of lye or dumped into a mass grave."

Are you a dual citizen? No? Are you connected with drug cartels? Also no? Stop crying then.

 

[Ryotknife]

Even if guns were banned and the gun industry dismantled, guns will still easily find a way to criminals hands. Hell, there are plenty of foreign illegal guns. Automatic uzis are illegal and not made here, still find their way here.

So do you think we should not ban owning landmines, dynamite, flamethrowers, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons? You can't stop people from getting those. I mean, where does this stop?

Those things are banned.......and we dont hear about many incidents involving them, if any at all. But illegal guns such as uzis or even automatic rifles still crop up. We have to basically declare war on the Cartels to even have a remotest chance to slowing down the flow, which we cant because they are not in the US and Mexico is kinda pissed at us after we botched that operation that caused a lot of guns to get in the hands of criminals.

No one is arguing for military grade weaponry, in fact they are all banned and have been banned for DECADES.

 

[Pero]

Well in my contury is forbidden to own a gun and it is one of the safest conturys in Europe.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Even if guns were banned and the gun industry dismantled, guns will still easily find a way to criminals hands. Hell, there are plenty of foreign illegal guns. Automatic uzis are illegal and not made here, still find their way here.

So do you think we should not ban owning landmines, dynamite, flamethrowers, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons? You can't stop people from getting those. I mean, where does this stop?

Those things are banned.......and we dont hear about many incidents involving them, if any at all. But illegal guns such as uzis or even automatic rifles still crop up. We have to basically declare war on the Cartels to even have a remotest chance to slowing down the flow, which we cant because they are not in the US and Mexico is kinda pissed at us after we botched that operation that caused a lot of guns to get in the hands of criminals.

No one is arguing for military grade weaponry, in fact they are all banned and have been banned for DECADES.

I know, and I'm pissed because it's my RIGHT to own them. It says so in a mouldy old document written 200 years ago.

And it's not like the purpose of a flamethrower is to kill things. Only to...burn...stuff. And self-defence.

 

[Sami Veillard]

Yeah, cause the State is just SOOO eager to take back my military standard issue assault rifle... But seriously, better gun control is done through education, not rendering them illegal.