So, the questions are pretty straightforward.

Is gun ownership a decent privilege for a nation, or not?

I will post my views later, though they will be partially described in my poll choices.

Speaking from the point of view of a person who has no experience of people being allowed to own guns and lives in a place where you can't (legally) buy a firearm, I'm against it.
As much as I have no real evidence per se, I must say that I don't see how this can help.
Sure, self-defence etc, but you're giving people free access to something that could kill someone very easily.
Now, it's very easy to buy a knife (just about anyone can), but a gun is more deadly.

I think most people should be able to carry guns except for criminals who have been charged with violent crimes mostly. I think all weapons except for military style weapons should be legal to carry.

I'm not very into the gun control debate because I can understand both sides. Ideally, no one has guns and I find it morally objectable to want a firearm unless you're a cop, soldier, or hunter. However, even if guns were banned, dangerous people would still obtain them. That's why I have a moderate stance. Anyone who has isn't a potential nutcase and has a reason to obtain a gun should be allowed to get one, but nothing more than a hunting rifle or a single-round pistol, or something of that sort.

I guess there could be some reasons why people would be allowed to (eg. hunting - although technically I'm against killing things just for sport).
But even in these cases (which shouldn't be common), they should still have to undergo checks.
I think having a gun on the basis of self-defence can be a bit un-necessary.
If no one has a gun, there's less need for this form of self-defence.

I agree with Real, as I've grown up in a place where you aren't allowed guns without a proper license, I don't think they're necessary. I think only the military and police should carry guns; currently no-one takes the police seriously because there's very little they can do to stop you in most cases. I'm not saying shooting people is a good thing, but I know that police carrying guns would be a significant deterrent for many people my age that break the law.

Of course, living in London, I know that possessing a firearm being illegal doesn't stop everyone - the rates of gun crime here shows that.
But I think that it would only be worse if they were legal, and that firearms should be limited to the military/police - the police could do so much more (they'd be more of a deterrent, I'm not saying I want them to go around shooting people) if they could have a gun, as opposed to the very small amount of policemen/women that are allowed to.

I can't do this poll. I don't agree with any of the answers.

Yes people should be allowed to have guns, but they should only be allowed to fire them if they have taken classes in proper usage. Guns are tools and like any tool if you don't know how to use it, things can go very, very wrong.

I have taken gun safety courses, I know when it is appropriate to use a gun, how to fire a gun and how rto carry a gun.

I see no reason why I should not be allowed to carry a gun on my person even if I am a civilian. I don't have a criminal record and if I wasn't allowed to carry a gun I have more then one ballistic knife, which is actually far more convenient for killing a man then a pistol.

Take guns away and people will simply resort to knifing each other, and knife wounds are far more deadly then bullet wounds. I also have crossbows which would be more useful for murder then any gun.

I have also personally experienced the value of a good firearm in a round about way. When I was about 10 my mother always kept a tiny pistol in her purse, one day when we came home the window was smashed, the for was unlocked and there were two men rummaging through our house. My mother had no aim so she missed both men and instead ended up hitting the hallway door. the bullet went through two more walls before embedding itself in a dresser. Still the sound and sight of the gun sent both men running. Who knows what would have happened otherwise.

The point is a gun is like a nuclear weapon, nobody wants to be on the wrong end of it and will do an awful lot to avoid it. Intimidation my friends is the backbone of order.

Course in certain places banning guns it probably won't matter since if a thief gets caught in some barbed wire while robbing a farmer's house, the farmer is held liable.

So in any country with such a lack of justice as those countries in Europe which hold opinions like these, well there just isn't hope for them. The citizens of those countries probably need help just remembering to breathe.

At least we still remember how to think, how to express an actual opinion, and how to avoid generalising and look dumber than we are; unlike others, apparently.

Where did that actually happen?

Emphasis mine.

If it is a privilege, I can agree with it (having quite a few firearms in my house as well). If it's a blanket right, then no.

If your concept of 'order' is 'big fish eats small fish', then I can agree. However, in most countries in the world, except perhaps Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, order is the mutual respect of each other's rights, and intimidation is the most basic negation of that. If intimidation is seriously the backbone of 'order', what unlawful people would do is just escalating intimidation. Instead of bringing a bat, I'll bring a gun to rob your house. If there's a gun on your cabinet, I'll shoot you before you can grab it. There is a reason why countries with large amounts of guns also have the largest amount of gun-related crime per capita (inb4 "but there's more people here than there").

Ballistic knives are classified as weapons and are equated to carrying a loaded gun.

If your view of 'justice' is 'shoot whoever does anything bad', it's your concept of justice to be completely messed up, not a lack of justice around you.

My thoughts (almost) exactly.

Apparently your country considering the below quote, but the incident I'm referring to was one that happened in the U.K. A burgler injured himself pretty bad on a farmer's barbed wire, sued the farmer and won. But I would rather not get specific, its not really my business what Europeans are doing since it doesn't effect me.



So ruling in favor of a burgler is a sign of thinking. I think you would be much better off not thinking then. As for your opinions it would be much better if you kept your opinions as to what other countries are doing to yourselves if it doesn't concern you, like your opinions on who the President is. Really, we don't concern ourselves with European elections. There is no fathomable reason for you to be even thinking about our affairs. Also Europeans Generalise all the time.

Mutual Respect is a laughable term to decorate it with, you mean social pressure. That is a form of intimidation, intimidation isn't all violence after all. By the way, I am pretty certain guns are already used in robberies, escalation beyond pistols is just impractical for a robbery. And if you are a felon getting your hands on a gun is going to cost a very pretty penny since you have to get it off an arms dealer or steal it.

And if you notice America also has the highest amount of knife violence and pretty much every other type of violence per-capita. So focusing on the guns is pretty vain.



I am shocked that you would think we should shoot whoever does anything bad, let the punishment fit the crime!



I'm sure there is absolutely no other weapon out there I could get my hands on legally. Actually there are tons. I have lots of weapons in my house that I collect, swords, bows, spears, I even have some tomahawks, but I also have throwing knives, including a French GIGN's knife. Killing a person is merely a matter of wanting it done. And guns are far less dangerous (Easier to survive) then being stabbed with a 3 inch blade.

Am I the only one who sees a hilarious contradiction there?

Of course! After all, it's not as if the US had any kind of affairs in Europe, like military bases, industries, and it's not as if the US led a US-Europe alliance whatwasitsnameohright NATO. You're pretty much saying that you ought to be able to have your say in anything that happens in the world, whereas others should mind their own business? No, thanks. If you don't like me, him, or anybody else commenting on the US or any other country in the world, well, tough luck.

Just so that you know - the burglar does not become innocent of his own crime in that case. He'd still get the due penalty for his crime.

Besides that, in that case, the home owner was punished because there is a law regulating the use of barbed wire,

Of course. But most reported burglaries (79% according to the Italian Ministry of the Interior) are committed by unarmed people.

That sentence implies that she ought to have aimed for the burglars, so your 'shock' is hypocritical at best.

Of course. But using a gun puts you at a considerably smaller risk of detection (=range) than knives (=need to get into melee range).

Oh for heaven's sake. You're the one that's generalising. You're basing your entire argument around one case. I don't agree with that case; I don't think many Europeans would. So you see, that case does not represent PUBLIC OPINION. It represents one case of the ruling of law.

And your 'oh I'm a long way from there so I couldn't give a damn' view is incredibly short-sighted. There's nothing wrong with being interested in and having views on other countries' affairs.


You wouldn't understand the concept of mutual respect if it hit you in the face. Mutual respect is very different from social pressure. The point is that countries that allow civilians to own weapons like guns and ballistic knives have a higher rate of weapon-related crime per capita. So legal weapons make weapon crime worse.

A bold statement like that could use some backup, because now you've gone from "guns are a big problem" to "weapons are a big problem".

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...s-with-firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_...per-100-000-pop

Just a few to kick off with.

Also it was actually Demutig_Wind that argued other weapons were also a problem, he thought we were being biased by only arguing about guns in, guess what, a topic ABOUT guns...

No, you said weapons. Not guns.

Then you provide sources describing only guns.

This is very confusing. I do not need confusion.

What on Earth are you talking about?
That's completely irrelevant, and not true.
You're entitled to an opinion, of course, I won't deny you of that, but seriously, what?

I'm against guns, though.
I just think that without guns, there is less need for a gun as a form of self-defence...

I have to agree with you there, possession of a gun is pointless really because it's just for killing people really. I don't agree with Hunting (except for on 'scape). My family have an air rifle, but we just use that for shooting toy soldiers in the garden and my Dad only has it since he had it when he was like 10.

I wouldn't really think Demutig's comment on "needing help on how to breathe" is terribly out of place in Western Australia. A sign on how to wash your hands? Come on. That's ridiculous.

Oh what excellent advice - nothing can go wrong if somebody is trained in the use of a firearm!


Yes buddy, so have thousands of other people - you will not know what to do in an actual situation.


Killing a person? You plan on killing the person?


Funny how that hasn't happened to the countries who don't allow firearms.


The men would have probably run. And what do you class as a small pistol?


Apart from the fact that nobody actually fires nuclear weapons.


Lack of justice? Third door on the right for the asylum, my friend.

So it's bad for farmers to mark their land?

Beyond that, only lunatics mark their land?

Actually I provided two sources. One was about homicides using firearms; one was about non-firearm homicides. So no, my sources did not only describe guns

Okay, good point, sorry, that was my mistake.

Still, here's an interesting and telling graph:

Perception of safety walking in the dark.

The US, with its "bad" gun laws, has more citizens who feel safe about walking in the dark/at night than the UK, where there are "good" gun laws. Granted, gun laws alone wouldn't account for this, but consider that.

I believe that civilians without a criminal background should be allowed to own guns. For the use of home protection, the weapon should be limited to a handgun (not an RPG, not a machinegun). For hunting, single-shot rifles, or perhaps shotguns should be allowed. However, should an avid hunter use a rifle for protection of their home (i.e., they cannot get to the handgun, but they can get to the rifle, without placing themselves into a situation that will harm them), I find that okay. However, it should be the exception, not the rule.

Handgun ownership is the right of every non-criminal civilian. Note, however, I said right, not rule: If people choose to not own a handgun, it should not be forced upon them.

A fully automatic weapon, with armor piercing rounds should not be allowed to be owned by civilians. Nor should an RPG. Both are overkill. However, civilians should not be deprived of protection, should they wish to possess such protection. A handgun satisfactorily fulfills such a requirement. As such, I support the ownership of gun rights for civilians.

~John

Hmm, that is interesting, but I think it's more caused by a difference in culture (wrong word but I can't think of an alternative) rather than the weapon laws. This will probably be a complete generalisation, I appreciate this doesn't represent everyone, no offence meant to anyone and all...but the GENERAL ideology of the public in the US seems to be much more independent and 'stick up for yourself' than in the UK...

I failed at wording that, but yeah.

I admit - when walking alone at night - especially in some areas I can get quite scared but of being knifed However, if people could walk around freely and legally with firearms in their bags I'd be pretty damn worried.

most ppl, the ppl who couldnt would be the obvious:
minors
criminals
those on probation

Personally -- I'd be more frightened of a "well-armed" public wielding fire arms without any controls upon them than vice versa -- but that's just me.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Is it?

Does it bother you that I am agreeing with you?

Do you have a monopoly on this opinion of which I am unaware?

If you were agreeing then that's fine, it just sounded like you were trying to disagree.

No, just you quoted my comment in reply and said "but that's just me" implying that what I said was different.

Ah -- I see - no, there was no implication of a disagreement intended in that post ...

I said if it concerns you. Our Presidency does not concern you. Our attempt at a missile shield does concern you. We are pretty much the same country we were 100 years ago, we aren't much bigger, I can't see why it matters now what we do as long as it doesn't effect you.


Do not scrutinize my off hand insults!



And must Home Evasions are committed by idiot delinquents, getting shot would probably learn them.



Its a red herring.


Knives are quieter, easier to conceal and more sure of a kill. Guns are loud and draw attention. You can rob a man, open up his guts and escape before anybody notices a thing when you use a knife.



Ad Hominem
Not much better then gossip.



Least likely correlation. America has more gangs, more ethnic diversity feeding gang violence, more organized crime due to easier smuggling, more depression, more drug use, higher rates of drunkenness, huge amounts of political discourse and so on. I am of the firm belief that having weapons doesn't create violence, but the mentality of the people behind the weapons that creates violence and making guns illegal does nothing to change that mentality. It is just the government trying to seize more control.



Not on accident and people who are untrained can't use guns for self-defense.



point was if I wanted to kill a person there are better ways then gun.



Heh heh, yeah its hilarious, they are still using guns, heh heh, course Britain is the exception with 350 knife assaults every day heh, heh, heh...


Ad Hominem and Red Herring.

Honey, just because you may have done a weekend clay pigeon shooting course doesn't mean you would be able to mentally handle yourself in said situation. And what weapons are you trained in, by chance?


Yes there are, but a gun is a pretty good way, better than a knife.


Yes but those people aren't all dying, by knife assault it doesn't mean that they've been killed - if somebody dies from a knife attack it would be on the national news on both the radio and tv at 6 and 10 - but usually there's nothing with the occasional one or two.


No it wasn't - just your points were ridiculous, stop waiting behind the computer for me to forget and answer my questions, you've missed out half of them.

Does such attempt at a missile shield happen by divine creation or by a deliberate act of your government? If it's the latter, I don't see why we shouldn't comment on it. And even if it doesn't concern me, that does not mean that I do not have the right to comment on it. It might be inopportune, at best, at times. But should I shut up just because of that? Heavens no.

100 years ago:
- In 1909, the US didn't have bases throughout the whole Western Europe.
- In 1909, the US wasn't the major commercial partner of what is now the EU.
- In 1909, the US was nowhere near being a superpower - Britain was.
- In 1909, the world wasn't as globalised as it is now, and information flowed far less freely, if at all.
- In 1909, most countries didn't have an interest in what other countries did.
Do I really need to go on? Besides that, "100 years ago we were the same I don't see why it matters now" is not an excuse. By the same logic, since in 1909 your house (if it existed at all) didn't have hygienic services inside, you should go outside every time you had to go to the bathroom. In 1909 very few houses had running water, so you shouldn't use running water. See what I mean?

Why not? Everything you say can and will be used against you: this is the Debate Room, not the Reichstag. Not to mention that you just admitted to insulting (even if not myself, at least directly). Lamenting "ad hominem" attacks is "laughable".

Why? They risk much less if they are unarmed. Armed robberies are punished more harshly than unarmed ones, for instance. Getting shot would probably learn them only one thing - "shoot first".

Ethnic diversity exists throughout Europe too. There are, for instance, about 4.5 million ethnic Turks in Germany. That doesn't mean that they organise in gangs. Segregation by ethnicity feeds gang violence, not ethnic diversity.

You're telling me that countries surrounded or with large access to the sea (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Malta, Croatia) are a harder target for smuggling than the US? That's ridiculous at best.

They're not a divine punishment, they're something that can be acted upon: otherwise, other countries would have the same exact problem. Which they don't.

Because of course there's none of that in Europe.

350 knife assaults every day over a population of about seventy million people? How many knife assaults happen in the US every day? I'm pretty sure it's not less than 1400.

That is what an adrenaline dump is for, to handle the mental part.


Murder is best done in the back, and the act is only half of it. Getting away after committing murder is the most important part.


Knives are also illegal to carry around in the U.K. I really didn't have much of a point, t was just a red herring but yeah.



My points weren't stupid, they were ad hominems and red herrings. I am purposefully trying to see if I can get a victory without actually addressing any point. I've seen it done before, and if I can do it then I'll have everything in the bag. I need to mix in some strawmen.



When thats all Newsvine seems to talk about, I get the feeling that some Eurpeans care more about our elections then we do. That is waaay too much of an opinion.



1. That is a point which I will ignore.
2. We were a major trading partner with Britain or was it the U..K. by then? Anyway, close enough.
3. Super Power is just a measurement of Military, wealth and political influence, hardly worth talking about.
4. 2 hours or 2 months, information is information as long as it flows.
5. And the world was faaar better off then.
6. So you are saying that there just isn't enough going on in Europe to keep your attention.



Because I said so, thats why. Ask me and I'll tell you.



Making street drugs legal, preferably in the purest form possible and making them very cheap would solve nearly all of America's crimes and possibly some of Europes. Failing that this is the next best solution.



I'm ignoring this.



Still far less shoreline, just about every inch if those coasts are mapped and patrolled.



Its not a problem caused by guns either.


No near as much, I don't think you get violent mobs beating people half to death over small things like recounts.


Total assaults in America is 2,000,000

Total assaults in the UK is 700,000

Thats the best I can find, although assaults probably include beatings.

Ahh phooey, you are a twig!

Basically, you have no evidence to back up your argument at all. You're just an idiot who thinks we should all live in separate cages and never give a thought for anyone else. Legalising street drugs would solve crime? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Your posts in this topic have been pathetic, just pathetic, and you've said "I'm going to ignore that" to everything you couldn't think up a ridiculous answer to. Start thinking before you post please.

Yes, exactly what I was going to say. But he didn't get my quote so I couldn't continue and say "I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes overr".

Mate, there's no point trying to argue with this crap you're producing - think about what you're saying.

I throw a dozen ad hominems at you right now!

Demutig_wind, I must say, I'm thoroughly entertained.

And guess what, you just proved to us all you have the mental age of an 8-year-old. Wait, that's insulting to 8-year-olds.

Try to form a convincing argument that isn't based around you isolating yourself from every other person on Earth, or we're never going to take you seriously.

I have to say forming feeble insults after you failed to back up your claims really makes me want to take you seriously.

Oh for god sake just grow up a little.

If any person would be allowed to have a gun, crime rates will easily go up in 1 day

I say, no one should be allowed to have guns unless you have a license for it and have paid for the gun and have a job

My cousin have a gun but he also got a license to carry the gun

Good lord I wonder how many potential Murderers have those qualifications? Gun crime will go way down for sure If all you need is a job and money!


This would be sarcasm by the way.

What on Earth are you talking about. Another quote added to the list of ridiculous things you've said in this topic alone.
Honestly, please grow up and stop saying such stupid things, or please, just get out. I doubt you've made a single post in this topic where you haven't said something ridiculously stupid.

I think there should be an assault weapons ban for civilians, mostly because honestly, why the heck do you need an automatic weapon? You don't.

Yeah, that's my thought too. The only reason for one is to cut down massive amounts of people.

Americans will claim they need them to solve their squirrel problem or for protection or whatever. We are a gun obsessed nation.

example My uncle voted for Bush because he was concerned Gore was going to take away his guns.