Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Unchecked Expansion]

I believe the stats do indicate that gun owners are more likely to be shot.
And it does seem likely that access to guns can make unstable situations a lot worse in no time at all.
I'm anti-gun ownership. But I'm also a Brit, and prepared to get shouted down by a wall of yanks

Hang in there....they are a tough lot!!

Yup, but you invaded them and burnt their capital twice.

Only once.

I believe DC was burnt once on the way down, once on the way back up?
As for the NRA fighting getting their homes certified safe - it's common sense to make sure your gun won't be stolen and used on you or your neighbours. As so many guns used in crime are stolen, obviously there are people who do not keep them secure. In this case it is only proper that someone makes sure for them, although I'd call it being too irresponsible to own a gun myself

[Zoharland]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

[CanuckHeaven]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Because otherwise, it would've been impossible? *ahem* *cough* knife *cough*

It is far easier to shoot someone dead from a distance, and it is certainly easier to shoot oneself rather than stabbing oneself to death?

[Unchecked Expansion]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

However a gun is designed to kill primarily. It is a weapon. A kitchen knife is a tool, a car is a mode of transport, a shoelace is a piece of clothing. To have a gun, especially a handgun, is to be prepared to kill

[Rodina Mat]

Considering these anti-gun ownership remarks are coming from subjects, not free citizens, they are irrelevant.

Gun ownership is a right guaranteed, not granted, by the US Constitution. It is recognized as a right of free citizens to exercise as they see fit both for defense of self and as a check on government run amok.

If you do not understand that, you do not understand why it is important.

It is not about hunting, target shooting, "sporting purposes," or anything trivial.

The right to own a means to defend oneself is inherent to a free citizen. If that right is removed, one becomes a subject and a slave to the will of others.

[F1-Insanity]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

However a gun is designed to kill primarily. It is a weapon. A kitchen knife is a tool, a car is a mode of transport, a shoelace is a piece of clothing. To have a gun, especially a handgun, is to be prepared to kill

A gun is a weapon for self-defence.

[Peepelonia]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

Because otherwise, it would've been impossible? *ahem* *cough* knife *cough*

Yeah coz when was the last time you saw somebody shot with a knife?

The point is, if you keep guns in the house, then it is easyier to grab it an shoot somebody in the heat of passion, than it is if you do not keep guins in the house.

[Timesjoke]

A gun is only a tool, an efficent tool to be sure, but still a tool.

It is people who kill. The vast majority of legaly owned gun use is for sport and self defense. It is rare beyond mesure for a legal gun to be used for illegal purposes.


This brings to mind a story I read about Northern Ireland. I don't live there but the story was about how pretty much everything has been made illegal, even BB guns and painball guns. The story was about the next layer of laws being proposed to make "glass" glasses illegal in public places because in the absense of other weapons, it was normal for the people of NI to break these glasses and attack each other.

[Cabra West]

I believe the stats do indicate that gun owners are more likely to be shot.
And it does seem likely that access to guns can make unstable situations a lot worse in no time at all.
I'm anti-gun ownership. But I'm also a Brit, and prepared to get shouted down by a wall of yanks

Its so much easier for the state to declare a dictatorship if the people do not have guns.

Weimar republic banned guns, to keep them out of the hands of the nazi stormtroopers. Didn't work.

And the Nazis went and liberalised the gun ownership... and funnily enough, they didn't get overthrown.
The argument that guns are needed for a population to defend itself against as few would-be dictators is utter bollocks.

[Bluth Corporation]

I believe the stats do indicate that gun owners are more likely to be shot.
And it does seem likely that access to guns can make unstable situations a lot worse in no time at all.
I'm anti-gun ownership. But I'm also a Brit, and prepared to get shouted down by a wall of yanks

Its so much easier for the state to declare a dictatorship if the people do not have guns.

Weimar republic banned guns, to keep them out of the hands of the nazi stormtroopers. Didn't work.

And the Nazis went and liberalised the gun ownership... and funnily enough, they didn't get overthrown.
The argument that guns are needed for a population to defend itself against as few would-be dictators is utter bollocks.

The phrase "necessary but not sufficient" springs to mind.

There must also be the WILL to overthrow.

The means to overthrow without the will may be pointless, but the will to overthrow without the means is impossible.

[Peepelonia]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

No I think that must be your logic, mine does not tell me this. My point is simply this, please do try to get it an not add other things to it. If you keep guns in your house and an argument brakes out with your partner then it is very easy to grab a gun in the heat of passion and use it. Yes of course you could do the same with knife, or a brick, or table leg, but you know I can't help think that with just one pull of a trigger your chances of being dead are much higher then if attacked with a knife, brick, or table leg.

We do get some shootings in the UK, mostly it's crime related, not many normal people getting into rows and then grabbing that handy gun. How much of that sort of stuff do you get Stateside?

[New Ziedrich]

This brings to mind a story I read about Northern Ireland. I don't live there but the story was about how pretty much everything has been made illegal, even BB guns and painball guns. The story was about the next layer of laws being proposed to make "glass" glasses illegal in public places because in the absense of other weapons, it was normal for the people of NI to break these glasses and attack each other.

Please tell me this is a joke, because it's pathetic.

[Cabra West]

The phrase "necessary but not sufficient" springs to mind.

There must also be the WILL to overthrow.

The means to overthrow without the will may be pointless, but the will to overthrow without the means is impossible.

Even at that time, nearly a century ago, an armed population would have had an extremely hard time to overthrow any government by sheer force of firepower. The government didn't just have a few pocky guns at its disposal, but an entire military, trained and armed to the teeth.

These days, the situation is even more silly : do you seriously see some hobby-gun-nuts take on something like the US military and stand even a smidgen of a chance? Seriously?

On the other hand, there were unarmed populations all over Eastern Europe that brought to fall regimes like that of Eastern Germany...

Guns are utterly useless and pointless in preventing and/or overthrowing governments.

[Dunroaming]

The prime purpose of a gun is to wound and/or kill. If a gun is readily available it will be the weapon of choice in marital disputes. It is easier to pull the trigger of a gun, than stab or beat someone to death. It allows the user to be removed from his/her actions during the onset of anger. Yes, there may be remorse afterwards, but in the heat of an argument, a gun is easy to use.
And I speak from experience. I am a lawyer who has represented many clients accused of murder, where guns have been used. Apart from hunting and range shooting, guns are simply too dangerous to be allowed into the domestic setting. I live in the UK where a gun licence is difficult to obtain, apart from shotgun and competitive rifle use.

[Zoharland]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

However a gun is designed to kill primarily. It is a weapon. A kitchen knife is a tool, a car is a mode of transport, a shoelace is a piece of clothing. To have a gun, especially a handgun, is to be prepared to kill

Something's primary purpose matters little when someone decides to use it for something else. A car is a mode of transportation, but should I decide to run down my ex, it becomes a weapon. A gun is primarily made to kill, but assume I lived in the wilderness, perhaps somewhere up north with a lot of brown bears. A gun could be my only means of scaring them away from my home, and in that case it may not be used to kill anything. A shot of gunfire may scare them off, for instance.

Just because a gun is designed to be used for something, doesn't mean thats all I'll use it for. I might not just decide to run down the street shooting at everyone who passes by, you know. I might just keep it on me just in case a situation arises where I need it. One can use a gun responsibly. There is no reason they should be taken away from ordinary citizens who use them responsibly.

[Cabra West]

This brings to mind a story I read about Northern Ireland. I don't live there but the story was about how pretty much everything has been made illegal, even BB guns and painball guns. The story was about the next layer of laws being proposed to make "glass" glasses illegal in public places because in the absense of other weapons, it was normal for the people of NI to break these glasses and attack each other.

Well, if you believe that, of course you will believe other nonsense about how useful guns are as well.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

However a gun is designed to kill primarily. It is a weapon. A kitchen knife is a tool, a car is a mode of transport, a shoelace is a piece of clothing. To have a gun, especially a handgun, is to be prepared to kill

A gun is a weapon for self-defence.

Self defence is still killing. I'm simply making a point on the nature of weapons

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And we go back to the old age saying: Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

I personally, boy I've said this so many times, do not like weapons. Of any kind. But that's my personal dislike. Just because of that I won't go around saying guns are bad and should be banned. I may not like them, but others have the right to carry them, within the law, and if they so wish to.

[Gift-of-god]

...

Guns are utterly useless and pointless in preventing and/or overthrowing governments.

You seem to be ignoring the effectiveness of the insurgency in Iraq and the continuing war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. They are both examples of citizens with ordinary guns figting, more or less effectively, against a force with superior military technology.

[Zoharland]

The aversion to guns shown in this thread reminds me of a question asked in another:

Why should my freedom be sacrificed for your sense of security?

[H N Fiddlebottoms VIII]

I believe the stats do indicate that gun owners are more likely to be shot.
And it does seem likely that access to guns can make unstable situations a lot worse in no time at all.
I'm anti-gun ownership. But I'm also a Brit, and prepared to get shouted down by a wall of yanks

Hang in there....they are a tough lot!!

Yup, but you invaded them and burnt their capital twice.

Propaganda and filthy lies. Andrew Jackson accidentally burned down Washington D.C., everyone knows that.

He [Andrew Jackson] also drove the British out of Washington DC, but he was so hotblooded that it set the place on fire.

[Gimmadonis]

You guys are absolutely right.

I should just let that thug break into my house, steal my stuff, rape my daughter, and shoot me in the face with the gun he obtained illegaly anyways.

Makes perfect sense.

[Unchecked Expansion]

...

Guns are utterly useless and pointless in preventing and/or overthrowing governments.

You seem to be ignoring the effectiveness of the insurgency in Iraq and the continuing war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. They are both examples of citizens with ordinary guns figting, more or less effectively, against a force with superior military technology.

However, they are fighting a democracy. In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.
Much like in vietnam, sentiment is against the Iraq War, and the US cannot use the tactics it used in Vietnam without massive public outcry from the public back home. A dictatorship has a free hand there though, espeically if it comes with controlled media

[Bluth Corporation]

In the much loved hypothetical situation of military dictatorship, the military would likely use overwhelming indiscriminate force - dictatorships have no issues about arbitrary internment and execution.

So?

At least the rebellion stands a chance; at least those who wish to be free can go out in a blaze of glory, on their own terms, rather than as captives or slaves.

[Zoharland]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

I think the point is that gn ownership made it possible to do so.

By that logic we should ban cars, knives, anything that could possibly be used to murder someone else.

And let me tell you, thats a lot of things.

No I think that must be your logic, mine does not tell me this. My point is simply this, please do try to get it an not add other things to it. If you keep guns in your house and an argument brakes out with your partner then it is very easy to grab a gun in the heat of passion and use it. Yes of course you could do the same with knife, or a brick, or table leg, but you know I can't help think that with just one pull of a trigger your chances of being dead are much higher then if attacked with a knife, brick, or table leg.

We do get some shootings in the UK, mostly it's crime related, not many normal people getting into rows and then grabbing that handy gun. How much of that sort of stuff do you get Stateside?

My logic tells me that things shouldn't be banned because of how they could be used or how much easier it is to bring an end result with them.

It may not be as easy to kill someone with a knife, or it may be. Stab someone in the throat, and unless they get immediate medical attention they'll die. Stab someone several times, and the same applies.And all it takes is one good shot with something (a brick, as you suggested) in the right place in the back of the head to kill them.

I'm not gloating over how many ways I can think of to kill someone. I'm trying to rid you of your childish view that it is so much more difficult to kill someone with a knife then it is with a gun. And why would ease matter when the end result is the same, someone's dead.

Are we trying to prevent people from killing one another easily, or are we trying to prevent people killing one another completely? Why does it matter what they were murdered with, so much as that they were murdered.