Does the legality of guns benefit society?

As an Englishman, I'm not well versed on US rights when it comes to guns, but here's something I want to throw out there:

Do you (Americans) think it is a benefit to the US that guns are legal? The feeling I often get is "because guns are legal, I must arm to the teeth just in case I get robbed by a guy with a gun". Would you rather have had it that guns were never made legal in the first place?

I myself do see a role for guns to fight crime, but of course there are inevitable risk factors involved. As some of you will be aware, the UK has a serious knife crime problem, and guns still play a part in crime in the UK.

So:

1. Does a decision to outlaw guns leave the public at risk from criminals?

2. Does the legality of guns benefit a country?

3. Do the social benefits of gun legality outway the social costs?

As an Englishman, I'm not well versed on US rights when it comes to guns, but here's something I want to throw out there:

Do you (Americans) think it is a benefit to the US that guns are legal? The feeling I often get is "because guns are legal, I must arm to the teeth just in case I get robbed by a guy with a gun". Would you rather have had it that guns were never made legal in the first place?

KlepticGrooves

The thing is that people will kill people and continue to do that for all eternity. If guns were illegal for the most part such as they are in the UK then only the government and criminals would have guns. Criminals wouldn't care about the obviously and you as an unarmed citizen would be victim of the ever-increasing tyranny of your government as we so clearly can see with the UK. Hell you can't buy cutterly for cooking without age restrictions. One day your government could put you all in trains and send you off to work camps and you'd have no way to stop them. The founding fathers of the US felt that if government went out of hand it would be the duty of the citizens to utilize their 2nd amendment rights to remove the tyranny.

I'd rather have every single adult person in this country have an arsenal than only my government and criminals have them. There's no "because guns are legal, I must arm to the teeth just in case I get robbed by a guy with a gun". It's all optional. Many people here have guns for the sole purpose of self defense because it's a wonderful deterrent to would-be wrongdoers. I could rob people all day long in the UK but here in the US I have to assume everyone has a gun and will use it to defend their lives. If you look into it some more you'll find that gun ownership works quite well in civilized nations. Look into Switzerland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ufkwTM82e4

Shooting sports are just about the safest sports of every sport out there.

Here are some pictures that basically sum up my points:

I hope that has helped. If not I invite you to come to the U.S. to take some firearms safety and training courses and go to a shooting range with me. It's quite fun to hit milk jugs at 500 yards with a one of the Lee-Enfield rifles Britain used for their military but banned from their citizens.

As an Englishman, I'm not well versed on US rights when it comes to guns, but here's something I want to throw out there:

Do you (Americans) think it is a benefit to the US that guns are legal? The feeling I often get is "because guns are legal, I must arm to the teeth just in case I get robbed by a guy with a gun". Would you rather have had it that guns were never made legal in the first place?

I myself do see a role for guns to fight crime, but of course there are inevitable risk factors involved. As some of you will be aware, the UK has a serious knife crime problem, and guns still play a part in crime in the UK.

So:

1. Does a decision to outlaw guns leave the public at risk from criminals?

2. Does the legality of guns benefit a country?

3. Do the social benefits of gun legality outway the social costs?

KlepticGrooves

1. Yes, as criminals get guns illegally anyway

2. Yes, but I wont go into it for fear of sounding like a militia member lol

3. I think so...there really is no social cost, unless your a "gun r baddd mmakay" hippie, or a gun-collecting fat redneck lol. As for crime, well...gun crime happens where crime happens.

Isn't it as a defence from a currupt government? Well the US government is the most powerful on earth, so it's kind of obsolete now. i guess all those criminals about still need shootin

In my experience most people who think that they do are either rural or paranoid individuals in suburbiaweezyfb

I'm neither so now you're just trolling.

I believe guns are bad no matter what they are used for. Their whole purpose is to kill the person in front of you. You can argue with me about that... but the bottom line is that a gun is used for nothing then to kill a person. Whether he be a threat or not. MgamerBD

None of my guns have killed anyone (well the Soviet ex-Dragoon M91/30 I have probably did but it did so in the hands of the Soviet military in the 20s and 30s) so your entire argument is full of fail. Try again.

No, in no way shape or form does the legality of guns benefit society.
Allowing people to legally carry around highly dangerous weapons can make bad situations worse and lead to many more needless deaths in the world.Same_Jeans_On

Do you have any sources to this? You're basically saying it's better for someone to be able to just kill unarmed person than to allow the law-abiding one to defend themself.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]In my experience most people who think that they do are either rural or paranoid individuals in suburbiaVolucris

I'm neither so now you're just trolling.

key words being 'in my experience' and 'most'. You seem to not understand what trolling entails....

Not everyone who owns a gun uses it for illegal purposes. Some people use guns for hunting, which there actually is a great need for animal control in parts of the US - Deer and Bear control mainly. Some people just like collecting and shooting their guns. Some just collect them without even shooting. Of course with guns there is crime, but with knives there is also crime. You can kill someone with a toaster. You can kill someone with dental floss. You can kill someone with water. Are we going to outlaw these things? ... No. Criminals here in the US would easily acquire more guns if theirs were taken away. Then, we would have a real problem. xhellcatx

Yes but you can't walk into a crowded shopping centre and kill 50 people with a toaster or a knife. The fact is that if someone attacks you with a knife you have a chance to defend yoursefl, you don't have this option when facing a gun.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]In my experience most people who think that they do are either rural or paranoid individuals in suburbiaVolucris

I'm neither so now you're just trolling.

I believe guns are bad no matter what they are used for. Their whole purpose is to kill the person in front of you. You can argue with me about that... but the bottom line is that a gun is used for nothing then to kill a person. Whether he be a threat or not. MgamerBD

None of my guns have killed anyone (well the Soviet ex-Dragoon M91/30 I have probably did but it did so in the hands of the Soviet military in the 20s and 30s) so your entire argument is full of fail. Try again.

Just becuase none of your guns have killed anybody doesn't mean you should have them, i've never killed anyone drink driving but that doesn't mean i should be allowed to drink drive.

Not everyone who owns a gun uses it for illegal purposes. Some people use guns for hunting, which there actually is a great need for animal control in parts of the US - Deer and Bear control mainly. Some people just like collecting and shooting their guns. Some just collect them without even shooting. Of course with guns there is crime, but with knives there is also crime. You can kill someone with a toaster. You can kill someone with dental floss. You can kill someone with water. Are we going to outlaw these things? ... No. Criminals here in the US would easily acquire more guns if theirs were taken away. Then, we would have a real problem. xhellcatx

yes but guns make it extremely easy to kill, with a knife you must get close and their is a chance to defend.

Yes but you can't walk into a crowded shopping centre and kill 50 people with a toaster or a knife. The fact is that if someone attacks you with a knife you have a chance to defend yoursefl, you don't have this option when facing a gun.

mattisgod01

You could run someone over with a car so we better not allow them either? You have no logical argument.

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]Not everyone who owns a gun uses it for illegal purposes. Some people use guns for hunting, which there actually is a great need for animal control in parts of the US - Deer and Bear control mainly. Some people just like collecting and shooting their guns. Some just collect them without even shooting. Of course with guns there is crime, but with knives there is also crime. You can kill someone with a toaster. You can kill someone with dental floss. You can kill someone with water. Are we going to outlaw these things? ... No. Criminals here in the US would easily acquire more guns if theirs were taken away. Then, we would have a real problem. weezyfb

yes but guns make it extremely easy to kill, with a knife you must get close and their is a chance to defend.

If you outlaw guns criminals won't care in the least, they'll still have them but you have then taken away the ability for a citizen to defend themselves against a gun wielding criminal.

If you outlaw guns criminals won't care in the least, they'll still have them but you have then taken away the ability for a citizen to defend themselves against a gun wielding criminal.

Bloodaxe726

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Yes but you can't walk into a crowded shopping centre and kill 50 people with a toaster or a knife. The fact is that if someone attacks you with a knife you have a chance to defend yoursefl, you don't have this option when facing a gun.

Volucris

You could run someone over with a car so we better not allow them either? You have no logical argument.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that everyone at school should have a gun? What happened at those schools would never happen in Australia because guns are not easy for psychopaths to get their hands on. They are not easy for criminals to get their hands on either. Especially the types of weapons used in those massacres.

If everyone in those schools had been armed how do you think the scene would have played out? people who look like students walk into a school and start shooting, then random students pull out guns to defend themselves...before you know it everyone is shooting at everyone in a panic. then the police show up and have no idea who started it all.

[QUOTE="Volucris"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Yes but you can't walk into a crowded shopping centre and kill 50 people with a toaster or a knife. The fact is that if someone attacks you with a knife you have a chance to defend yoursefl, you don't have this option when facing a gun.

mattisgod01

You could run someone over with a car so we better not allow them either? You have no logical argument.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that everyone at school should have a gun? What happened at those schools would never happen in Australia because guns are not easy for psychopaths to get their hands on. They are not easy for criminals to get their hands on either. Especially the types of weapons used in those massacres.

If everyone in those schools had been armed how do you think the scene would have played out? people who look like students walk into a school and start shooting, then random students pull out guns to defend themselves...before you know it everyone is shooting at everyone in a panic. then the police show up and have no idea who started it all.

Seeing as you don't care to think logically about this one I'm not going to bother with you. Maybe you can read the following: http://www.concealedcampus.org/ http://www.guncite.com/Volucris

I'm not going to waste my time reading some pro gun propaganda, i've heard all the poor excuses for it. The way i see it is that in the civilized world people shouldn't feel the need or be allowed to carry such dangerous weapons. Australia banned guns in the 90's (or around that time) following the Port Arthur massacre and now people don't fear the person breaking into their house will have a gun. To resort to something as rediculous as propossing everyone carry guns to ballance everything out is an absolute failure of a nation.

[QUOTE="Volucris"]Seeing as you don't care to think logically about this one I'm not going to bother with you. Maybe you can read the following: http://www.concealedcampus.org/ http://www.guncite.com/mattisgod01

I'm not going to waste my time reading some pro gun propaganda, i've heard all the poor excuses for it. The way i see it is that in the civilized world people shouldn't feel the need or be allowed to carry such dangerous weapons. Australia banned guns in the 90's (or around that time) following the Port Arthur massacre and now people don't fear the person breaking into their house will have a gun. To resort to something as rediculous as propossing everyone carry guns to ballance everything out is an absolute failure of a nation.

The picture is playing on the more extreme but subtle point that if you ban guns totally, the people who want to commit those crimes (mass murder) will somehow find a way to get their hands on said guns... cops cant take away all the guns we have here... NO way. There will be a way for criminals to get guns. If law abiding citizens give up their guns, they have no way to protect themselves from criminals WITH guns... basically its leaving all civilians as free game.

xhellcatx

Australia is also an island.... its a bit easier to keep the regulations there as opposed to someone who has attached borders where people can smuggle things quite easily across the borders.xhellcatx

Canada isnt an island but rather the 2nd largest nation on earth yet it doesnt have a gun problem

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that everyone at school should have a gun? What happened at those schools would never happen in Australia because guns are not easy for psychopaths to get their hands on. They are not easy for criminals to get their hands on either. Especially the types of weapons used in those massacres.

If everyone in those schools had been armed how do you think the scene would have played out? people who look like students walk into a school and start shooting, then random students pull out guns to defend themselves...before you know it everyone is shooting at everyone in a panic. then the police show up and have no idea who started it all.

weezyfb

Here are some pictures that basically sum up my points:

Volucris

No, with the exception of specialist units, policemen in Britain don't carry guns at all.

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

The picture is playing on the more extreme but subtle point that if you ban guns totally, the people who want to commit those crimes (mass murder) will somehow find a way to get their hands on said guns... cops cant take away all the guns we have here... NO way. There will be a way for criminals to get guns. If law abiding citizens give up their guns, they have no way to protect themselves from criminals WITH guns... basically its leaving all civilians as free game.

weezyfb

Australia is also an island.... its a bit easier to keep the regulations there as opposed to someone who has attached borders where people can smuggle things quite easily across the borders.xhellcatx

Canada isnt an island but rather the 2nd largest nation on earth yet it doesnt have a gun problem

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that everyone at school should have a gun? What happened at those schools would never happen in Australia because guns are not easy for psychopaths to get their hands on. They are not easy for criminals to get their hands on either. Especially the types of weapons used in those massacres.

If everyone in those schools had been armed how do you think the scene would have played out? people who look like students walk into a school and start shooting, then random students pull out guns to defend themselves...before you know it everyone is shooting at everyone in a panic. then the police show up and have no idea who started it all.

weezyfb

Regardless.. Highschool shootings are entirely too rare to even consider that as a good possibility of dieing from.. You have greater chance of getting killed in a car crash on your way to school/work/home etc etc.. Then you ever do of getting killed in a school shooting or a terrorist.. You have a 1 in 6250 chance of getting struck by lightening in your life time.. according to http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm.. Thats much higher then ever getting killed in a school shooting, or by a terrorist.. Chances of getting killed in a car accident is way higher then getting struck by lightening.. Yet we freak out about the things that we are least likely to die from..

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"] The picture is playing on the more extreme but subtle point that if you ban guns totally, the people who want to commit those crimes (mass murder) will somehow find a way to get their hands on said guns... cops cant take away all the guns we have here... NO way. There will be a way for criminals to get guns. If law abiding citizens give up their guns, they have no way to protect themselves from criminals WITH guns... basically its leaving all civilians as free game.

xhellcatx

Thats the whole point, There will always be people like that and the idea is to make it harder for those people to cause as much death as they do, not easier.

[QUOTE="Volucris"]

Here are some pictures that basically sum up my points:

jimmyjammer69

No, with the exception of specialist units, policemen in Britain don't carry guns at all.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"] Most if not all school shooters have purchased their guns legally

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

Australia is also an island.... its a bit easier to keep the regulations there as opposed to someone who has attached borders where people can smuggle things quite easily across the borders.xhellcatx

Canada isnt an island but rather the 2nd largest nation on earth yet it doesnt have a gun problem

The only kind of restrictions I would see would be on assault rifles and automatic weapons.. Both are not needed for hunting nor are they adaquate for home defense.

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"][QUOTE="weezyfb"] Most if not all school shooters have purchased their guns legally

mattisgod01

Thats the whole point, There will always be people like that and the idea is to make it harder for those people to cause as much death as they do, not easier.

[QUOTE="Volucris"]

Here are some pictures that basically sum up my points:

jimmyjammer69

No, with the exception of specialist units, policemen in Britain don't carry guns at all.

I think the police you see with the sub machine guns are mostly around airports or politicians. And mostly for counter-terrorism, but most police don't carry guns at all. Don't quote me on that though.

Also the 1900's is kind of a broad timeline and i would like to see any evidence linking the banning of guns to in increase in violent crimes.

i will put it to you this way my friend:guns dont kill people.people kill people.you can kill a man with a car or a baseball bat but you dont have anyone stopping you from driving to a ball game do you?sure guns make it easy to kill people but thats not the problem.people making the wrong choice's is.

had to edit to correct spacing whats up with that?

Well I think that the 2nd Amendment was intended so the people could defend themselves not from each other, but the government. Back in those days the big issue was state vs fed rights, and if the Fed ever got to much power the people could have guns and fight if it got that far.Agent-Zero

The majority of Founding Fathers also thought that the United States would be a sparsely populated rural country.. This isn't advocating guns to be banned, but its flat out silly to suggest that guns is what keeps the government from becoming tyrannical.. Most successful dictatorships and authoritative governments divide and conquer the country.. Pitting faction against faction and reaping the benefits..

[QUOTE="Volucris"]

Here are some pictures that basically sum up my points:

jimmyjammer69

No, with the exception of specialist units, policemen in Britain don't carry guns at all.

Yea i was thinking that too, that pic is total BS

The legality of guns is not designed to benefit society but rather the individual. In the US, we put high value on individual rights and freedoms. There are many habits that are bad for society - smoking, eating many pleasurable foods, premarital sex, etc. However, while many of these activities may adversely affect the health of a society, they are still left to the choice of the individual as opposed to having a government mandate. I'd rather make my own decisions than have someone make them for me.

i will put it to you this way my friend:guns dont kill people.people kill people.you can kill a man with a car or a baseball bat but you donthave anyonestopping you fromdriving to a ball game do you?sure guns make it easy to kill people but thats not the problem.people making the wrong choice's is.

eagle63

For debating sake though, guns have created far more efficent and effective ways to kill people.. Man may have been killing each other before guns, but guns have upped the body count even more so.. This isn't suggesting we advocate the banning of guns, just something to think about.. For instance guns now a days are capable of taking out entire rooms of people, while the founding fathes were really only concerned where a guy walks in shoots their one round gun then getting beaten in a pulp by the rest people.. ITs certainly something interesting to think about of how radically powerful guns have become since their creation.

Canada isnt an island but rather the 2nd largest nation on earth yet it doesnt have a gun problem

weezyfb

Canada is also 1/10th the population of the US

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]

Canada isnt an island but rather the 2nd largest nation on earth yet it doesnt have a gun problem

Canada is also 1/10th the population of the US

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="Volucris"]

Here are some pictures that basically sum up my points:

xhellcatx

No, with the exception of specialist units, policemen in Britain don't carry guns at all.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"] That being true, they would have still obtained their guns illegally if they could not have legally. They were so disturbed they would have gone to any length to get their guns... OR they would have resorted to the use of bombs... which can be made from home. *shrugs* Either way if someone is going to start killing people, they will figure out a way to do so. xhellcatx

Thats the whole point, There will always be people like that and the idea is to make it harder for those people to cause as much death as they do, not easier.

I can understand how someone being able to shoot the guy shooting at them could have helped in some situations but to even consider arming everyone to balance the power just seems unbelievable logic to me. I think i read somewhere that there are about 28,000 gun related deaths in the US every year so these few instances while tragic are only a very small percentage of the overall problem. Most gun deaths would occur regardless of whether the person getting shot was armed or not.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]

Canada isnt an island but rather the 2nd largest nation on earth yet it doesnt have a gun problem

Led_poison

Canada is also 1/10th the population of the US

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

No, with the exception of specialist units, policemen in Britain don't carry guns at all.

jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"] See i thought that was the case.. Bobbies just carry the sticks, tazers, and pepper spray, right?

Wolls

Aside from hunting, there really isn't a benefit. Hunting thins out the herd so to speak, in turn not only making the roads safer but also allowing farmers to have larger returns when harvesting. Believe it or not, deer are quite the little pests. Farmers can lose fairly large portions of their fields to deer.

As an Englishman, I'm not well versed on US rights when it comes to guns, but here's something I want to throw out there:

Do you (Americans) think it is a benefit to the US that guns are legal? The feeling I often get is "because guns are legal, I must arm to the teeth just in case I get robbed by a guy with a gun". Would you rather have had it that guns were never made legal in the first place?

I myself do see a role for guns to fight crime, but of course there are inevitable risk factors involved. As some of you will be aware, the UK has a serious knife crime problem, and guns still play a part in crime in the UK.

So:

1. Does a decision to outlaw guns leave the public at risk from criminals?

2. Does the legality of guns benefit a country?

3. Do the social benefits of gun legality outway the social costs?

KlepticGrooves

even if guns were illegal....people would still find a way to get them.....just like narcotics.....i personally feel better about sleepin next to my sig .45acp just incase some one tries to rob me or somethin....i hope i never have to use it.....but better safe than sorry.....