Should guns be banned in the United States?

Unless you want to regard the Bill of Rights as useless...and no I don't think they should ban guns not even regulate...Honestly guns just make it easier to kill someone: if another person hated someone enough to kill them it wouldn't matter what they had. Why does everyone say the U.S. in there topics? Could we stop criticizing one nation over all? There's other problems in other nations that are just as bad, if not worse? mechwarrior_bob

Nobody is criticising the US, it's just a topical discussion. :|

The kids at Columbine got their guns illegally...

ImaPirate0202

Ok. That makes my entire point completely irrelevant then.

Oh wait....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Except that a family can be killed in the time it takes for the cops to get there. There is nothing wrong with having guns for protection. These guns are not used to randomly go out and shoot up the neighborhood.

Ninja-Hippo

Sure they are. :| I realise that criminals get their guns illegally. That doesn't even need pointing out. I think making the sale of guns illegal is being proposed to cut down on high school students buckling under stress or anger and taking a gun to school. To prevent domestic disputes turning ugly. To stop people reaching for their guns when a situation really doesn't require it. Again; see shop owner gunning a man down who was trying to steal $100 to pay his utility bills.

Should he be resorting to theft in the first place? Definately not. Did he deserve to die for it? Heck no. And really; people keep saying that only a few hundred people die due to store-bought guns a year - why on earth are we ok with that? :?

You contradict yourself with the first two statements...so no response. High school students are NOT legally able to purchase a gun. Therefore, the guns are stolen or bought on the black market. Gun crime by the way...is down.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Ok what if someone breaks into my house at night, and they have a gun which they acquired illegally. Since I'm a law abiding citizen and was forced to give up my right to have a gun, how am I going to defend myself and my family? Call the cops and pray that they get there before the burglars shoot us? I guess instead of saying honey get the guns, I would be saying where's the machetes.The_Mac_Daddy

No offense but that's exactly what you should do. :| Call the police and let them catch the criminal and bring him to justice. Allowing people to take the law into their own hands isn't a good thing. Have you seen the YouTube video of the guy who shoots a thief in the leg, walks right up to him and puts another shot in his head while he's lying there on the floor? That's the "defending myself" which you're talking about.

That man would have either got away with petty robbery, or been caught and spent some time in jail for it. Thanks to "defending ourselves" that man is now dead.

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

I agree with peaceful_anger, and no the Police? You trust the police to come and catch the criminal? Before or after he slaughters my family? Also a note crime in cities with Concealed Carry go down mainly because criminals now know that if you face someone there's a chance there going to be able to kill you. Fear is a deterrent and used in the right way very handy.

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

The_Mac_Daddy

He was a desperate man who made a dumb decision. You're saying it's ok that he was shot and killed? If you were god, in charge of what happens to this man, would you rather he a). got away with petty crime b). got caught and spent a couple of years in jail or c). was murdered in cold blood because some psycopath is allowed to carry a gun to "defend himself" against an unarmed thief?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Except that a family can be killed in the time it takes for the cops to get there. There is nothing wrong with having guns for protection. These guns are not used to randomly go out and shoot up the neighborhood.

LJS9502_basic

Sure they are. :| I realise that criminals get their guns illegally. That doesn't even need pointing out. I think making the sale of guns illegal is being proposed to cut down on high school students buckling under stress or anger and taking a gun to school. To prevent domestic disputes turning ugly. To stop people reaching for their guns when a situation really doesn't require it. Again; see shop owner gunning a man down who was trying to steal $100 to pay his utility bills.

Should he be resorting to theft in the first place? Definately not. Did he deserve to die for it? Heck no. And really; people keep saying that only a few hundred people die due to store-bought guns a year - why on earth are we ok with that? :?

You contradict yourself with the first two statements...so no response. High school students are NOT legally able to purchase a gun. Therefore, the guns are stolen or bought on the black market. Gun crime by the way...is down.

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]

The kids at Columbine got their guns illegally...

Ninja-Hippo

Ok. That makes my entire point completely irrelevant then.

Oh wait....

Nope, but it shoots down your point about stopping kids from bringing guns to school. Remember, schools are "gun free zones". So what happened there must of been impossible...right?

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Ok what if someone breaks into my house at night, and they have a gun which they acquired illegally. Since I'm a law abiding citizen and was forced to give up my right to have a gun, how am I going to defend myself and my family? Call the cops and pray that they get there before the burglars shoot us? I guess instead of saying honey get the guns, I would be saying where's the machetes.mechwarrior_bob

No offense but that's exactly what you should do. :| Call the police and let them catch the criminal and bring him to justice. Allowing people to take the law into their own hands isn't a good thing. Have you seen the YouTube video of the guy who shoots a thief in the leg, walks right up to him and puts another shot in his head while he's lying there on the floor? That's the "defending myself" which you're talking about.

That man would have either got away with petty robbery, or been caught and spent some time in jail for it. Thanks to "defending ourselves" that man is now dead.

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

I agree with peaceful_anger, and no the Police? You trust the police to come and catch the criminal? Before or after he slaughters my family? Also a note crime in cities with Concealed Carry go down mainly because criminals now know that if you face someone there's a chance there going to be able to kill you. Fear is a deterrent and used in the right way very handy.

Generally people don't break into houses just to kill the people inside, hide or pretend you are still asleep until the police arrive.

[QUOTE="hurley_house"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]:lol: at the guy saying london is free of gun crime. Crime in london has done nothing but increase for the past five years because the city is getting too big for it's own good.Ninja-Hippo

No offense but at least the other opinions are informed ones. You seemed to just make stuff up. :? And then top it off with unnecessay anti-america comments.

they state their opinion of how guns solve crime i state my opinions of how less guns = less crime. how is my opinion less informed :roll:

I agree with peaceful_anger, and no the Police? You trust the police to come and catch the criminal? Before or after he slaughters my family? Also a note crime in cities with Concealed Carry go down mainly because criminals now know that if you face someone there's a chance there going to be able to kill you. Fear is a deterrent and used in the right way very handy.

mechwarrior_bob

No offense but how many cases of criminals breaking into houses and needlessly slaughtering an entire family are we speaking of here? Enough to justify all the other killings which take place when people aren't "defending themselves"?

How come countries were guns are banned dont seem to be having any problems with people crying out for the ability to defend themselves against all of these house-robbing serial killers?

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

james28893

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

they state their opinion of how guns solve crime i state my opinions of how less guns = less crime. how is my opinion less informed :roll:

hurley_house

Because you said you sit happily in london without fear of gun crime when london's gun crime is easily on par with anywhere in the states. :|

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

Ninja-Hippo

He was a desperate man who made a dumb decision. You're saying it's ok that he was shot and killed? If you were god, in charge of what happens to this man, would you rather he a). got away with petty crime b). got caught and spent a couple of years in jail or c). was murdered in cold blood because some psycopath is allowed to carry a gun to "defend himself" against an unarmed thief?

Of course he didn't deserve to die. But, when he broke into the guys house, it was the guys right to do what he wanted. You can't wait to check if the guy is armed or not, you can't shoot to injure. If he is breaking into your house, I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing on shooting to injure, it's shoot to kill.

[QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

LJS9502_basic

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

True.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

The_Mac_Daddy

He was a desperate man who made a dumb decision. You're saying it's ok that he was shot and killed? If you were god, in charge of what happens to this man, would you rather he a). got away with petty crime b). got caught and spent a couple of years in jail or c). was murdered in cold blood because some psycopath is allowed to carry a gun to "defend himself" against an unarmed thief?

Of course he didn't deserve to die. But, when he broke into the guys house, it was the guys right to do what he wanted. You can't wait to check if the guy is armed or not, you can't shoot to injure. If he is breaking into your house, I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing on shooting to injure, it's shoot to kill.

Why shoot to kill over shoot to incapacitate? There is no good reason whatsoever.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="hurley_house"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]:lol: at the guy saying london is free of gun crime. Crime in london has done nothing but increase for the past five years because the city is getting too big for it's own good.hurley_house

No offense but at least the other opinions are informed ones. You seemed to just make stuff up. :? And then top it off with unnecessay anti-america comments.

they state their opinion of how guns solve crime i state my opinions of how less guns = less crime. how is my opinion less informed :roll:

Because it doesn't.

One significant reason why London has less gun crime is because you don't have millions of people packed into grungy ghettos who grow up without even basic education and are raised around a pimitive culture that promotes getting rich and famous through particularly disgusting means, such as drugs, guns, murder, and violence.

I love my country, I would die for it, and I wouldn't pick another place to be. I think my country is the greatest in the world, but I'm well aware of the significant problems that plague it.

Guns themselves being legally purchased are the very, very last of our problems.

[QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

LJS9502_basic

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

Because it doesn't.

One significant reason why London has less gun crime is because you don't have millions of people packed into grungy ghettos who grow up without even basic education and are raised around a pimitive culture that promotes getting rich and famous through particularly disgusting means, such as drugs, guns, murder, and violence.

I love my country, I would die for it, and I wouldn't pick another place to be. I think my country is the greatest in the world, but I'm well aware of the significant problems that plague it.

Guns themselves being legally purchased are the very, very last of our problems.

-TheSecondSign-

a). London doesn't have less gun crime. Guns in london is on the news all the time.

b). Have you ever been to london? :|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

Ninja-Hippo

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

No...there is an extensive black market for guns....including in the UK.;)

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

The_Mac_Daddy

He was a desperate man who made a dumb decision. You're saying it's ok that he was shot and killed? If you were god, in charge of what happens to this man, would you rather he a). got away with petty crime b). got caught and spent a couple of years in jail or c). was murdered in cold blood because some psycopath is allowed to carry a gun to "defend himself" against an unarmed thief?

Of course he didn't deserve to die. But, when he broke into the guys house, it was the guys right to do what he wanted. You can't wait to check if the guy is armed or not, you can't shoot to injure. If he is breaking into your house, I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing on shooting to injure, it's shoot to kill.

That, and it's dark and he could just as easily be a demented crackhead.

My family lives in that house.

I'm not going to risk anything for some random, potentially, maniacal person I don't care about.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

LJS9502_basic

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

No...there is an extensive black market for guns....including in the UK.;)

It would still be much harder to aquire a gun than if you're family had one.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

Because it doesn't.

One significant reason why London has less gun crime is because you don't have millions of people packed into grungy ghettos who grow up without even basic education and are raised around a pimitive culture that promotes getting rich and famous through particularly disgusting means, such as drugs, guns, murder, and violence.

I love my country, I would die for it, and I wouldn't pick another place to be. I think my country is the greatest in the world, but I'm well aware of the significant problems that plague it.

Guns themselves being legally purchased are the very, very last of our problems.

Ninja-Hippo

a). London doesn't have less gun crime. Guns in london is on the news all the time.

b). Have you ever been to london? :|

Maybe I jumped the gun.

But I hear about murder, rape, and violence all the time over here all the time.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

Ninja-Hippo

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

Because gun control doesn't work. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will find other ways. They always have.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

Because it doesn't.

One significant reason why London has less gun crime is because you don't have millions of people packed into grungy ghettos who grow up without even basic education and are raised around a pimitive culture that promotes getting rich and famous through particularly disgusting means, such as drugs, guns, murder, and violence.

I love my country, I would die for it, and I wouldn't pick another place to be. I think my country is the greatest in the world, but I'm well aware of the significant problems that plague it.

Guns themselves being legally purchased are the very, very last of our problems.

Ninja-Hippo

a). London doesn't have less gun crime. Guns in london is on the news all the time.

b). Have you ever been to london? :|

Did you know the leading cause of death in London is Americans looking the wrong way when they cross the streeet? :P Seriously, I almost got killed twice. Guess, we are just creatures of habit. As far as gun crime, when I visited London I didn't hear of too much - but obviously it was only a short visit. The city seemed very safe though it did have a few shady areas like any big city.

Of course he didn't deserve to die. But, when he broke into the guys house, it was the guys right to do what he wanted. You can't wait to check if the guy is armed or not, you can't shoot to injure. If he is breaking into your house, I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing on shooting to injure, it's shoot to kill.

The_Mac_Daddy

It was a store, not a house. And the guy shot him in the leg, climbed over the counter, walked right up to him as he lay there bleeding, and shot him twice more in the head.

Again; i dont see "self defense" as a good reason. I refuse to believe that more people's lives are saved each year through them defending themselves with gun, then people dying each year because of either simple domestic disputes going wrong, someone getting drunk and doing something stupid, or some psychopath like that shopkeeper putting a bullet in some poor guy's head because he made the dumb mistake of trying to rob his store.

It would still be much harder to aquire a gun than if you're family had one.

james28893

Not really. :|

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

Criminals know that when they break into someone else's house, they are risking their life. Even though it wasn't right that the guy would put a bullet in the dudes head, let's not forget that the criminal is still the criminal. That wouldn't have happened if he wouldn't have broken in to the guys house.

james28893

He was a desperate man who made a dumb decision. You're saying it's ok that he was shot and killed? If you were god, in charge of what happens to this man, would you rather he a). got away with petty crime b). got caught and spent a couple of years in jail or c). was murdered in cold blood because some psycopath is allowed to carry a gun to "defend himself" against an unarmed thief?

Of course he didn't deserve to die. But, when he broke into the guys house, it was the guys right to do what he wanted. You can't wait to check if the guy is armed or not, you can't shoot to injure. If he is breaking into your house, I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing on shooting to injure, it's shoot to kill.

Why shoot to kill over shoot to incapacitate? There is no good reason whatsoever.

When it's the heat of the moment, you can give a **** about shooting just to injure. You are going to shoot that mother ****** before he can even THINK about harming anybody in your house. You can't bank on trying to hit a limb. You just shoot the guy, if he dies he dies.. his fault.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

ImaPirate0202

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

Because gun control doesn't work. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will find other ways. They always have.

Should compare gun-violence to at time when there where no guns and see if crime has gone down?

[QUOTE="hurley_house"]

they state their opinion of how guns solve crime i state my opinions of how less guns = less crime. how is my opinion less informed :roll:

Ninja-Hippo

Because you said you sit happily in london without fear of gun crime when london's gun crime is easily on par with anywhere in the states. :|

never in my life have i feared of being shot whereas those other two feel that they could get shot hence they need a gun. what does that tell you?

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

mechwarrior_bob

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

Because gun control doesn't work. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will find other ways. They always have.

Should compare gun-violence to at time when there where no guns and see if crime has gone down?

Define "a time when there were no guns".

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="hurley_house"]

they state their opinion of how guns solve crime i state my opinions of how less guns = less crime. how is my opinion less informed :roll:

hurley_house

Because you said you sit happily in london without fear of gun crime when london's gun crime is easily on par with anywhere in the states. :|

never in my life have i feared of being shot whereas those other two feel that they could get shot hence they need a gun. what does that tell you?

I live in the US and I have never feared about getting shot.

Did you know the leading cause of death in London is Americans looking the wrong way when they cross the streeet? :P Seriously, I almost got killed twice. Guess, we are just creatures of habit. As far as gun crime, when I visited London I didn't hear of too much - but obviously it was only a short visit. The city seemed very safe though it did have a few shady areas like any big city.

sonicare

London is beautiful. Much like new york, when you arrive you're simply amazed at the epic scale of everything. The roads, the buildings, etc etc. That's the city though. When you move out of the stores, and the restaurants and the apartment buildings you get tiny cramped streets full of poor families. Again, just like big cities in the states, it's these areas which are sort of "left behind" where all of this starts; drugs, violence, gangs, guns.

I'm just saying; gun crime in london is pretty bad, in response to the dude saying it was fine and dandy. It aint.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

Of course he didn't deserve to die. But, when he broke into the guys house, it was the guys right to do what he wanted. You can't wait to check if the guy is armed or not, you can't shoot to injure. If he is breaking into your house, I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing on shooting to injure, it's shoot to kill.

Ninja-Hippo

It was a store, not a house. And the guy shot him in the leg, climbed over the counter, walked right up to him as he lay there bleeding, and shot him twice more in the head.

Again; i dont see "self defense" as a good reason. I refuse to believe that more people's lives are saved each year through them defending themselves with gun, then people dying each year because of either simple domestic disputes going wrong, someone getting drunk and doing something stupid, or some psychopath like that shopkeeper putting a bullet in some poor guy's head because he made the dumb mistake of trying to rob his store.

Ever think of it the other way around? The poor stoor owner can't afford for someone to steal his goods. The owner shot the guy and then shot him even more out of pure anger. I can't justify that behavior, but the blame is still on the criminal, not the owner.

never in my life have i feared of being shot whereas those other two feel that they could get shot hence they need a gun. what does that tell you?

hurley_house

That you live in a nice neighbourhood? That you aren't familiar with any parts of the city where there are gangs, and drug dealers?

Ever think of it the other way around? The poor stoor owner can't afford for someone to steal his goods. The owner shot the guy and then shot him even more out of pure anger. I can't justify that behavior, but the blame is still on the criminal, not the owner.

The_Mac_Daddy

People shouldn't die for falling on hard times and making a stupid mistake. Simple as that. Dont try to justify walking up to an injured man and murdering him. There is no justification. Even if the store owner was poor; you dont MURDER another human being out of anger that he tried to rob you. What he did was bad, but trying to steal some money isn't an offense you'd execute somebody for now, is it?

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Did you know the leading cause of death in London is Americans looking the wrong way when they cross the streeet? :P Seriously, I almost got killed twice. Guess, we are just creatures of habit. As far as gun crime, when I visited London I didn't hear of too much - but obviously it was only a short visit. The city seemed very safe though it did have a few shady areas like any big city.

Ninja-Hippo

London is beautiful. Much like new york, when you arrive you're simply amazed at the epic scale of everything. The roads, the buildings, etc etc. That's the city though. When you move out of the stores, and the restaurants and the apartment buildings you get tiny cramped streets full of poor families. Again, just like big cities in the states, it's these areas which are sort of "left behind" where all of this starts; drugs, violence, gangs, guns.

I'm just saying; gun crime in london is pretty bad, in response to the dude saying it was fine and dandy. It aint.

If that's referring to my post, I didn't know London had it THAT bad, but I live in a mid sized city, one without a huge number of people or even ghettos in the area, and there are three major gangs, drug dealing up the anuscrack, and there are more reports of murder, rape, abuse, and violence on the news than there are sections about political elections-and this is an election year.

It's almost sad I'm even saying this, because I feel disgusted that I'm even talking about it in such a manner.

If that's referring to my post, I didn't know London had it THAT bad, but I live in a mid sized city, one without a huge number of people or even ghettos in the area, and there are three major gangs, drug dealing up the anuscrack, and there are more reports of murder, rape, abuse, and violence on the news than there are sections about political elections-and this is an election year.

It's almost sad I'm even saying this, because I feel disgusted that I'm even talking about it in such a manner.

-TheSecondSign-

No it was the guy saying he can sit happily in london without fear of being shot; and someone responded explaining why gun crime in london is low. It may have been you. I was just pointing out that it isn't. It's not THAT BAD, as you said, but it's about as bad as any big american city.

[QUOTE="mechwarrior_bob"][QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Steal the family's gun, which was probably bough legally. Admittedly though most of the massacres you've had over there were perpetrated using illegal firearms.

-TheSecondSign-

Stolen is still stolen. That means they weren't legally obtained.:|

And if guns were illegal it wouldn't have been purchased by said family, the teenager couldn't have stolen it, and he'd have a much harder job getting hold of a gun to go on his crazy shooting spree.

I just dont see why anyone would be against banning guns. Even if you think it's not going to accomplish anything; why is it so bad to at least try and stop the number of people being killed by guns? Why are we accepting things as they are?

Because gun control doesn't work. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will find other ways. They always have.

Should compare gun-violence to at time when there where no guns and see if crime has gone down?

Define "a time when there were no guns".

your joking right? how far back do u want to go? 10,00 B.C. through the time when guns became popular/standard in militas etc. so 10,000 B.C.-1500 A.D

No...there is an extensive black market for guns....including in the UK.;)

LJS9502_basic

What does that have to do with anything? :|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No...there is an extensive black market for guns....including in the UK.;)

Ninja-Hippo

What does that have to do with anything? :|

The black market would be what distributes guns illegally. It's exactly how people would get guns if bans were put into effect.

[QUOTE="hurley_house"]

never in my life have i feared of being shot whereas those other two feel that they could get shot hence they need a gun. what does that tell you?

Ninja-Hippo

That you live in a nice neighbourhood? That you aren't familiar with any parts of the city where there are gangs, and drug dealers?

no i think its london in general never have i read in any headines "SHoot out in times square!" or "LOCAL MAN SHOOTS DEAD GANG OF VICIOUS CRIMINALS" because it just dont happen in london sure a few deaths through gun crime happen a year but thats very little and i think i know better than most people on this forum who say LOL NO GUN CRIMES IN LONDON

[QUOTE="james28893"]

It would still be much harder to aquire a gun than if you're family had one.

LJS9502_basic

Not really. :|

Of course it would. If buying a gun was illegal and you wanted one, where would you go? I realise there are black markets but please, you act as though anyone could pick up the yellow pages and find one. If you live in a very rough neighbourhood, or you're part of a gang, i'm sure you could get hold of a gun. Saying that some teenager who stole his dad's gun would have easily been able to get one anywayy if his dad didn't have one just seems wrong to me. Where's he gonna find one? google?

I support gun control, not banning guns.

But I don't think either would work in the states. the second ammendment is very clear.

no i think its london in general never have i read in any headines "SHoot out in times square!" or "LOCAL MAN SHOOTS DEAD GANG OF VICIOUS CRIMINALS" because it just dont happen in london sure a few deaths through gun crime happen a year but thats very little and i think i know better than most people on this forum who say LOL NO GUN CRIMES IN LONDON

hurley_house

Dude, tackling gun crime is like the biggest story in UK news right now. :|

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

If that's referring to my post, I didn't know London had it THAT bad, but I live in a mid sized city, one without a huge number of people or even ghettos in the area, and there are three major gangs, drug dealing up the anuscrack, and there are more reports of murder, rape, abuse, and violence on the news than there are sections about political elections-and this is an election year.

It's almost sad I'm even saying this, because I feel disgusted that I'm even talking about it in such a manner.

Ninja-Hippo

No it was the guy saying he can sit happily in london without fear of being shot; and someone responded explaining why gun crime in london is low. It may have been you. I was just pointing out that it isn't. It's not THAT BAD, as you said, but it's about as bad as any big american city.

Ok, no. Gun crime in London is nowhere near as bad as any American city. The murder rate in London is about 1.8 per 100,000 people. Here in New Orleans, the most violent city, it is 95 per 100,000 people. In Detroit, it is 40 per 100,000. Our safest big city, NYC, is about 8 per 100,000. Many of the murders in the U.S. are from guns.

London's gun crime is nowhere near U.S. cities, but my point was that it is rising there. So the ban isn't working.

The black market would be what distributes guns illegally. It's exactly how people would get guns if bans were put into effect.

ImaPirate0202

Then explain to me why gun ownership in the UK is tiny? I dont know a single person who owns a gun. In fact i've never even heard of anyone owning a gun.

Obviously criminals get hold of them via illegal means; but they do that any way even as guns are legal in the states. The point is banning guns stops everyone ELSE from getting hold of one. Never again will you see "teenagers takes parents' gun; goes on rampage" because he simply cant do that. The only way he's getting hold of a gun is if he has some decent criminal connections in the first place.

And again, nor will you hear of simple domestic disputes turning into murder. Or a guy being pulled over for drink driving losing it and pulling a gun on the cop. Even if you only save a couple hundreds lives a year; why is that such a bad thing? Why are we so determined not to bother doing anything?

Ok, no. Gun crime in London is nowhere near as bad as any American city. The murder rate in London is about 1.8 per 100,000 people. Here in New Orleans, the most violent city, it is 95 per 100,000 people. In Detroit, it is 40 per 100,000. Our safest big city, NYC, is about 8 per 100,000. Many of the murders in the U.S. are from guns.

London's gun crime is nowhere near U.S. cities, but my point was that it is rising there. So the ban isn't working.

The_Mac_Daddy

I dunno where you got 1.8 from; but i wasn't comparing london to the worst, most violent parts of america. I just meant cities of similar size. :| And i imagine the number is bigger than 1.8 now, or else the news and politicians here are making an EPIC deal over nothing.