Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun rights in America and impact worldwide

riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 11:49:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The modern world is a conglomeration of different types of nations which vary in the form of their governments from republican-democracies, parliamentary monarchies, autocracies, pure monarchies, dictatorships, and more.

Although democracy was born 25 centuries ago in ancient Athens Greece, since then monarchies ruled the nations of the Earth for most of history. American republican-democracy was born in 1776 when the 13 English Colonies of North America along the Atlantic coast rebelled from the mother country and fought a war with her to ensure that independence.

Within 12 years of that date, a new Federal Constitution was adopted, including many rights of Americans which were enumerated within it such as "the right to keep and bear arms."

Various US States and jurisdictions interpret this right differently, although the US Supreme Court in its recent Heller decision (google: Heller Supreme Court) affirmed that while each such State has the right to regulate public possession of guns, however private possession in the home may not be infringed by any legislation.

This means Americans everywhere have the right to buy and own guns and keep them in their homes, transport them to shooting ranges, hunting grounds, and campsites, including unlimited amounts of ammunition. Some states even permit their residents to carry guns on their persons in public as well.

The 2nd Amendment which encapsulates this right, and the Heller decision by the Court, elaborate that this right is founded on the principles of self defense AND national defense AND defense of the Constitution document itself.

As such, all Americans, unlike their neighbors around the globe in other nations, have the right and the ability to ensure that their own persons are safe from assault by criminals or neighbors, that their Nation is free from invasion by foreign enemies, and that their government will remain free from tyranny or oppression. On the contrary, most nations reserve and relegate these responsibilities and privileges to their professional police forces and armies.

These are all good things for the American people.

Commensurately the also impact our neighbors to the north and south -- Canada and Mexico -- where American guns sometimes easily slip across the international borders.

For the rest of the world of nations however, the thus guaranteed liberty and freedom of Americans ensures that she will always be able to assist other nations in their struggles for liberty and freedom as well, whenever tyranny or oppression falls upon them.

These facts and conclusions are self evident.

Does anyone here reading this who is American feel differently?

Does anyone here who is from Canada or Mexico feel differently?

Does anyone from outside of North America feel differently?

For those choosing to respond, please provide your own analysis to support your statements in conclusion.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.

Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:58:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

Until America becomes a socialist nation where everybody has the same risk of home invasion, self-defense will be allowed for those that need it.
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 3:28:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.

What if a closet racist easily gets a gun in the UK for the "legitimate reason" of putting down an animal (when in reality he is referring to a human)? Does he have to bring the suffering animal and plop it on the front desk for confirmation? Does he get a Veterinarian's note saying he evaluated the animal and is worth a bullet to the head? Furthermore, I see it more ludicrous to trust a hunter with a weapon more than a school teacher who lives/works in a bad neighborhood.
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 3:34:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I vote that before we start taking guns away from innocent people, we begin with substantially increasing the severity in any crime where a gun is present (with the exception of minor incidents like speeding, parking violations, etc). Anything involving alcohol, drug possession, fighting, vandalism, or any other acts like these should be given a charge so severe that makes people genuinely think "Should I have a gun with me when I leave my house today?"
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:01:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 3:34:32 PM, AdamEsk wrote:
I vote that before we start taking guns away from innocent people, we begin with substantially increasing the severity in any crime where a gun is present (with the exception of minor incidents like speeding, parking violations, etc). Anything involving alcohol, drug possession, fighting, vandalism, or any other acts like these should be given a charge so severe that makes people genuinely think "Should I have a gun with me when I leave my house today?"

I am very pro increasing the penalties for poor management of guns.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 7:35:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 3:28:23 PM, AdamEsk wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.

What if a closet racist easily gets a gun in the UK for the "legitimate reason" of putting down an animal (when in reality he is referring to a human)? Does he have to bring the suffering animal and plop it on the front desk for confirmation? Does he get a Veterinarian's note saying he evaluated the animal and is worth a bullet to the head? Furthermore, I see it more ludicrous to trust a hunter with a weapon more than a school teacher who lives/works in a bad neighborhood.

All they would have to do is prove they keep animals. Generally farmers and smallholders who have medium sized animals like sheep and goat's. Theoretically a closet racist could buy some farm animals, show them to the police who do the check to see if the person is safe to be given a gun licence, and then carry out a gun related crime. Realistically it would be much easier to obtain the weapons on the black market so I doubt it's ever happened. It's interesting how gun control is such a big issue in the us. The simple solution is to introduce UK style controls. If you prevent the people who pose a threat from having a gun then normal people won't feel the need to keep a gun for self defence. Regulation deals with the issue. No one in the UK apart from criminals would want unrestricted gun ownership. I am not anti guns in any way. People in the UK with legitimate use for guns can easily obtain licences. They are reviewed every 3 years to ensure the licence holder is fit and able to operate the gun and are mentally healthy.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 8:59:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

Well it's not the same here. Self defense is a legitimate concern and no amount of legislation passed has really ever helped with the exception of maybe the brady bill.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 10:14:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 8:59:59 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

Well it's not the same here. Self defense is a legitimate concern and no amount of legislation passed has really ever helped with the exception of maybe the brady bill.

Would you agree though in saying stricter controls are needed? Where abouts do you live in the us? Do u personally feel the need to possess a firearm for self defence purposes?
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 10:18:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 10:14:12 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 8:59:59 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

Well it's not the same here. Self defense is a legitimate concern and no amount of legislation passed has really ever helped with the exception of maybe the brady bill.

Would you agree though in saying stricter controls are needed? Where abouts do you live in the us? Do u personally feel the need to possess a firearm for self defence purposes?

Depends. Somethings need to be changed. I live in Texas, and I would say yes I do.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 10:36:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 10:18:19 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/2/2015 10:14:12 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 8:59:59 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

Well it's not the same here. Self defense is a legitimate concern and no amount of legislation passed has really ever helped with the exception of maybe the brady bill.

Would you agree though in saying stricter controls are needed? Where abouts do you live in the us? Do u personally feel the need to possess a firearm for self defence purposes?

Depends. Somethings need to be changed. I live in Texas, and I would say yes I do.

I would personally say that the general public shouldent be allowed to carry firearms on the streets. I can understand the need to defend yourself on your own property but people walking around with guns is only going to create more problems than it dolves. I acknowledge I am used to a gun free culture. If someone was walking in the street with a gun in the UK, a criminal offence it would be a cause of fear to UK citizens and the incident would likely be reported to the police. This is a great effect of the policy on guns in the UK as it makes it significantly harder for criminals to blend in with the general population, as only people contemplating, engaging in or planning serious crimes would walk the streets armed with a gun in the UK. Obviously criminals carry guns but they are forced to hide and conceal them, which although possible is a factor that makes it harder for them to operate and increases the likelihood they will be caught.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:07:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 10:36:12 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 10:18:19 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/2/2015 10:14:12 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 8:59:59 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 1:11:41 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/1/2015 8:12:37 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm from the UK where gun ownership is regulated to those who use guns for legitimate means. People can apply for and easily obtain licences to use guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting, putting down animals that are suffering, shooting ranges and game shooting. However licences are not issued for self defence. I agree with this policy as it is ludicrous that anybody can freely buy dangerous weapons legally. There is so much wrong with somebody arming themselves for self defence
1. , It creates a gun culture where people feel they need guns to feel safe as everyone has them.
2. People with mental health problems are more likely to commit suicide, murder or launch a terrorist attack.
3. A fight between two people may advance to a gunfight in the heat of the moment as the individuals armed for self defence escalate the incident in the heat of the moment.
4. It sends a message to children that guns are normal and necessary.
5. It leads to more guns on the market and an increase in smuggling to Mexico and other countries due to the lack of regulation.
It is obvios change is needed to gun regulation in the us. Most americans agree but due to the role of gun groups in block voting in key marginal states politicians are afraid at looking at the issue.


Except for the fact that self-defense can be a legitimate concern...... Who are you to tell someone they can't defend themselves because you don't like guns?

I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

Well it's not the same here. Self defense is a legitimate concern and no amount of legislation passed has really ever helped with the exception of maybe the brady bill.

Would you agree though in saying stricter controls are needed? Where abouts do you live in the us? Do u personally feel the need to possess a firearm for self defence purposes?

Depends. Somethings need to be changed. I live in Texas, and I would say yes I do.

"""I would personally say that the general public shouldent be allowed to carry firearms on the streets. """

Concealed or openly?

"""I can understand the need to defend yourself on your own property but people walking around with guns is only going to create more problems than it dolves."""

Not necessarily true.

"""""" I acknowledge I am used to a gun free culture. If someone was walking in the street with a gun in the UK, a criminal offence it would be a cause of fear to UK citizens and the incident would likely be reported to the police. This is a great effect of the policy on guns in the UK as it makes it significantly harder for criminals to blend in with the general population, as only people contemplating, engaging in or planning serious crimes would walk the streets armed with a gun in the UK. Obviously criminals carry guns but they are forced to hide and conceal them, which although possible is a factor that makes it harder for them to operate and increases the likelihood they will be caught."""""""

Well in the U.S people like to walk the streets with guns as an open political statement, but honestly, it's like you said. The guys who are open carrying aren't criminals. Criminals hide their guns so you'd never know they had one.
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:52:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One thing is for sure-- whether firearms are acquired legally or not, whether lives are lost or saved, one group comes out ahead regardless: the firearms manufacturers.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 2:54:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:52:03 AM, Fly wrote:
One thing is for sure-- whether firearms are acquired legally or not, whether lives are lost or saved, one group comes out ahead regardless: the firearms manufacturers.

So what're you saying? It's their fault?
Gingeral
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 5:21:34 AM, robertacollier wrote:

Does anyone here reading this who is American feel differently?


Que all the liberal queers.

Hey Y'all. Y'all better know das racist okay honey? Im so queer. Lets have a gay pride parade.
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 1:48:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 2:54:15 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/3/2015 4:52:03 AM, Fly wrote:
One thing is for sure-- whether firearms are acquired legally or not, whether lives are lost or saved, one group comes out ahead regardless: the firearms manufacturers.

So what're you saying? It's their fault?

At fault for what exactly?

What I am saying is that for the mass producers of firearms, it is more about profit than principle. Whether firearms are a net benefit or a net damage, they make money either way.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 4:30:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

I beg to differ. I think criminals would rather see higher restrictions, as this would limit what we law-abiding citizens would be packing.

Criminals are criminals and by definition break laws. If they're willing to break the law by murdering someone or robbing a bank or whatever, then they're most likely willing to break the law to obtain a weapon. And it's not as hard to do so as one would think. If you're involved with any kind of illegal activity, you probably know someone who can get you a gun.

A perfect example of the failures of gun control is the North Hollywood Shootout. Long story short, two men robbed a bank and engaged the LAPD in a 44-minute shootout. They were not only covered in body armor, but were armed with five fully-automatic rifles and a pistol. At this time (1997), the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, along with the Roberti-Roos Act in California and numerous other laws. These two laws specifically banned the rifles that the robbers converted to fully-automatic. Every other law in place was designed to thwart the steps these two men took to obtain the rifles and convert them.

Gun laws failed to prevent this from happening. They've failed to prevent crime beyond this event. Chicago has some of the heaviest restrictions on gun ownership, yet has the highest murder rate in the nation, as well as the most gang-related crime.

What gun control really does is restrict what you and I can own and how we can go about defending ourselves and our property. Self-defense is a legitimate concern (unfortunately), and I believe that every law-abiding individual has an absolute right to it. Have I ever needed to defend myself? No. Will I ever need to? Chances are, no. But I can't guarantee that. I watched a video recently where three thugs approached a random person and stabbed him to death. No reason, no motive, no nothing. Just a random act of violence. Would this man still be alive if he was carrying a gun? I won't say yes, but you can't say no. All I know is he would have had a way of defending himself.

In Ferguson, shops and businesses were being destroyed left and right. The looters burned down all that they could. I read a story in which a group of young black men stood guard outside a gas station where they were employed. They were armed with assault rifles. They never fired a shot, but they did scare off oncoming mobs who would have set the store ablaze. For those of you who think AR-15s are scary evil murder weapons, and for those of you who ask "why do you need thirty rounds to hunt deer?" here is one legitimate reason why we law-abiding citizens should be able to own them. It's simple. http://www.inquisitr.com...

If you have any dispute with my argument, simply go on Youtube, and look up videos of people defending themselves with guns. In every video, the criminal either runs away or gets shot. Personally, I have no problem with these thugs and crooks getting shot. If you don't want to be killed in such a way, don't try to rob or murder people. As for the victims? Well, they weren't necessarily victims.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 6:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 4:30:20 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/2/2015 7:42:33 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am not anti guns in any way nor anti USA. It's just that I live in a country where gun control is viewed as a common sense approach to gun ownership. It is easy to obtain a licence if you have legitimate use for a gun. No one in the UK feels the need to have guns for self defence as their is no where near the level of risk of gun related crimes and conflicts. The only people who would be happy to see the easing of restrictions are
criminals.

I beg to differ. I think criminals would rather see higher restrictions, as this would limit what we law-abiding citizens would be packing.

Criminals are criminals and by definition break laws. If they're willing to break the law by murdering someone or robbing a bank or whatever, then they're most likely willing to break the law to obtain a weapon. And it's not as hard to do so as one would think. If you're involved with any kind of illegal activity, you probably know someone who can get you a gun.

A perfect example of the failures of gun control is the North Hollywood Shootout. Long story short, two men robbed a bank and engaged the LAPD in a 44-minute shootout. They were not only covered in body armor, but were armed with five fully-automatic rifles and a pistol. At this time (1997), the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, along with the Roberti-Roos Act in California and numerous other laws. These two laws specifically banned the rifles that the robbers converted to fully-automatic. Every other law in place was designed to thwart the steps these two men took to obtain the rifles and convert them.

Gun laws failed to prevent this from happening. They've failed to prevent crime beyond this event. Chicago has some of the heaviest restrictions on gun ownership, yet has the highest murder rate in the nation, as well as the most gang-related crime.

What gun control really does is restrict what you and I can own and how we can go about defending ourselves and our property. Self-defense is a legitimate concern (unfortunately), and I believe that every law-abiding individual has an absolute right to it. Have I ever needed to defend myself? No. Will I ever need to? Chances are, no. But I can't guarantee that. I watched a video recently where three thugs approached a random person and stabbed him to death. No reason, no motive, no nothing. Just a random act of violence. Would this man still be alive if he was carrying a gun? I won't say yes, but you can't say no. All I know is he would have had a way of defending himself.

In Ferguson, shops and businesses were being destroyed left and right. The looters burned down all that they could. I read a story in which a group of young black men stood guard outside a gas station where they were employed. They were armed with assault rifles. They never fired a shot, but they did scare off oncoming mobs who would have set the store ablaze. For those of you who think AR-15s are scary evil murder weapons, and for those of you who ask "why do you need thirty rounds to hunt deer?" here is one legitimate reason why we law-abiding citizens should be able to own them. It's simple. http://www.inquisitr.com...

If you have any dispute with my argument, simply go on Youtube, and look up videos of people defending themselves with guns. In every video, the criminal either runs away or gets shot. Personally, I have no problem with these thugs and crooks getting shot. If you don't want to be killed in such a way, don't try to rob or murder people. As for the victims? Well, they weren't necessarily victims.

I agree that criminals who commit crimes can have no complaints about being shot or injured while committing crime. I am in favour of strong punishment including the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. That is an area where the UK is too lenient with criminals. Crimes like robbery, rape, drug possession, drug smuggling/ dealing and assault are punished too leniently. I believe we can learn from the US when it comes to punishing criminals. I can see your point of view when it comes to carrying weapons to increase personal safety. It obviously is an effective deterrent for crimes like robbery or rape. However as I live in a country where carrying weapons in public is illegal it is something I find a strange thing to comprehend. There is no significant movement in the UK for citizens to be allowed to carry guns. I suppose this is due to people being used to not carrying guns? Where abouts in the us do you live? Do you personally carry a gun for self defence purposes? Is it a common thing for local people to do?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 12:59:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 6:57:10 PM, beng100 wrote:
I agree that criminals who commit crimes can have no complaints about being shot or injured while committing crime. I am in favour of strong punishment including the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. That is an area where the UK is too lenient with criminals. Crimes like robbery, rape, drug possession, drug smuggling/ dealing and assault are punished too leniently. I believe we can learn from the US when it comes to punishing criminals. I can see your point of view when it comes to carrying weapons to increase personal safety. It obviously is an effective deterrent for crimes like robbery or rape. However as I live in a country where carrying weapons in public is illegal it is something I find a strange thing to comprehend. There is no significant movement in the UK for citizens to be allowed to carry guns. I suppose this is due to people being used to not carrying guns? Where abouts in the us do you live? Do you personally carry a gun for self defence purposes? Is it a common thing for local people to do?

Actually I live in California, where carrying a gun is illegal. Here, people would panic if they saw anyone besides a cop carrying one. I've never carried one outside of hunting (which is legal), and I have never needed one. If I ever am forced into some situation where I have to defend myself, I hope that ten years of karate comes in handy. But I don't stand a chance against a 300-pound linebacker, or someone who has done ten years in prison, or someone who is armed themselves.

On the other hand I have visited Utah for vacation three times now, and the gun culture there is the opposite of what it is here or in the UK. It is normal to carry, especially in the mountains where four-legged creatures are after you. Hunting and shooting are popular activities, and there aren't too many regulations on gun ownership. I must note that the population is very small (the town I visit has 400 residents and many tourists), but the most serious crime I heard of there was (unfortunately) a bunch of delinquents shooting out the power lines, resulting in a power outage that lasted a little over a day. As one person said earlier in the forum, there should be heavier consequences of irresponsible use of a firearm.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:28:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 12:59:55 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/5/2015 6:57:10 PM, beng100 wrote:
I agree that criminals who commit crimes can have no complaints about being shot or injured while committing crime. I am in favour of strong punishment including the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. That is an area where the UK is too lenient with criminals. Crimes like robbery, rape, drug possession, drug smuggling/ dealing and assault are punished too leniently. I believe we can learn from the US when it comes to punishing criminals. I can see your point of view when it comes to carrying weapons to increase personal safety. It obviously is an effective deterrent for crimes like robbery or rape. However as I live in a country where carrying weapons in public is illegal it is something I find a strange thing to comprehend. There is no significant movement in the UK for citizens to be allowed to carry guns. I suppose this is due to people being used to not carrying guns? Where abouts in the us do you live? Do you personally carry a gun for self defence purposes? Is it a common thing for local people to do?

Actually I live in California, where carrying a gun is illegal. Here, people would panic if they saw anyone besides a cop carrying one. I've never carried one outside of hunting (which is legal), and I have never needed one. If I ever am forced into some situation where I have to defend myself, I hope that ten years of karate comes in handy. But I don't stand a chance against a 300-pound linebacker, or someone who has done ten years in prison, or someone who is armed themselves.

On the other hand I have visited Utah for vacation three times now, and the gun culture there is the opposite of what it is here or in the UK. It is normal to carry, especially in the mountains where four-legged creatures are after you. Hunting and shooting are popular activities, and there aren't too many regulations on gun ownership. I must note that the population is very small (the town I visit has 400 residents and many tourists), but the most serious crime I heard of there was (unfortunately) a bunch of delinquents shooting out the power lines, resulting in a power outage that lasted a little over a day. As one person said earlier in the forum, there should be heavier consequences of irresponsible use of a firearm.

That's interesting. I can completely see your points on the self defence issue, I suppose because I never feel in any danger of a criminal attacking me as I live in a rural area with a low crime rate. I'm guessing your views are in the minority in California though and I'm guessing gun related crime is surely lower in California then Utah? You hear these stories of these deranged idiots going into schools to brutally lots of innocent kids and it just annoys me that they often obtained their weapons legally. As I've mentioned in earlier posts in this forum a UK style checking system to ensure dangerous individuals and people with mental health issues don't get hold of guns. I can see how carrying guns in places where animal attacks are a possibility should be allowed though. I suppose there are mountain lions in California.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 4:21:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:28:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
That's interesting. I can completely see your points on the self defence issue, I suppose because I never feel in any danger of a criminal attacking me as I live in a rural area with a low crime rate. I'm guessing your views are in the minority in California though and I'm guessing gun related crime is surely lower in California then Utah? You hear these stories of these deranged idiots going into schools to brutally lots of innocent kids and it just annoys me that they often obtained their weapons legally. As I've mentioned in earlier posts in this forum a UK style checking system to ensure dangerous individuals and people with mental health issues don't get hold of guns. I can see how carrying guns in places where animal attacks are a possibility should be allowed though. I suppose there are mountain lions in California.

I would say the crime rate in California is higher. More people, more lunatics, more inner city violence in areas like LA, etc. I could be wrong, and I'm not going to look up any statistic because every stat says something different. But it's like I said, I don't hear about much crime in Utah. On the other hand, a man was shot dead about five minutes away from where I live. The gun may have been bought legally, who knows. But it's a crime to have one in public, and the murderer was breaking that law during the act. I don't think he would've been carrying it openly.

The whole idea of allowing people to carry is that if someone else decides to start a shooting, or whatever the crime is, the good guy has the option of ending it right there. I have heard of mass shootings stopped early by normal citizens carrying guns. What if a citizen was carrying one during the bank robbery I mentioned earlier? It could have prevented an hour long firefight that resulted in several police officers and civilians being injured. Or the man who was stabbed to death. He could have had the option of backing off, pulling out his firearm, and shooting anyone who lunged at him. If it takes a test or a permit or some kind of background check for me to be able to carry, that's fine. I would just prefer to have some kind of defense just in case a punch doesn't quite cut it.

As for school shootings, I think we should have some sort of armed guard on every school campus, with his own little office to stay in until he's called to action (that way no idiot kid goes for his gun during recess). The bad guy always kills himself before someone else can get him, so the armed guard would theoretically end it quicker than the police could.

And yes, there are mountain lions in some areas of California. In fact, I carry a sidearm while hunting to protect myself from them. Whether I will think to use it while I'm being mauled to death, I don't know--but I'd rather have it than not.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 7:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 4:21:46 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/6/2015 5:28:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
That's interesting. I can completely see your points on the self defence issue, I suppose because I never feel in any danger of a criminal attacking me as I live in a rural area with a low crime rate. I'm guessing your views are in the minority in California though and I'm guessing gun related crime is surely lower in California then Utah? You hear these stories of these deranged idiots going into schools to brutally lots of innocent kids and it just annoys me that they often obtained their weapons legally. As I've mentioned in earlier posts in this forum a UK style checking system to ensure dangerous individuals and people with mental health issues don't get hold of guns. I can see how carrying guns in places where animal attacks are a possibility should be allowed though. I suppose there are mountain lions in California.

I would say the crime rate in California is higher. More people, more lunatics, more inner city violence in areas like LA, etc. I could be wrong, and I'm not going to look up any statistic because every stat says something different. But it's like I said, I don't hear about much crime in Utah. On the other hand, a man was shot dead about five minutes away from where I live. The gun may have been bought legally, who knows. But it's a crime to have one in public, and the murderer was breaking that law during the act. I don't think he would've been carrying it openly.

The whole idea of allowing people to carry is that if someone else decides to start a shooting, or whatever the crime is, the good guy has the option of ending it right there. I have heard of mass shootings stopped early by normal citizens carrying guns. What if a citizen was carrying one during the bank robbery I mentioned earlier? It could have prevented an hour long firefight that resulted in several police officers and civilians being injured. Or the man who was stabbed to death. He could have had the option of backing off, pulling out his firearm, and shooting anyone who lunged at him. If it takes a test or a permit or some kind of background check for me to be able to carry, that's fine. I would just prefer to have some kind of defense just in case a punch doesn't quite cut it.

As for school shootings, I think we should have some sort of armed guard on every school campus, with his own little office to stay in until he's called to action (that way no idiot kid goes for his gun during recess). The bad guy always kills himself before someone else can get him, so the armed guard would theoretically end it quicker than the police could.

And yes, there are mountain lions in some areas of California. In fact, I carry a sidearm while hunting to protect myself from them. Whether I will think to use it while I'm being mauled to death, I don't know--but I'd rather have it than not.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense in fairness. I suppose California has a much greater population density than Utah? I personally am still concerned about the possibility of two guys/ girls getting into an argument on the street or maybe a dispute on the highway over a minor crash or something, that in a normal scenario would lead to a fist fight, possibly escalating into a gun fight. It's bound to happen occasionally but obviously the counter argument is the criminals commiting crime who could potentially be stopped by the general public. What type of hunting are you into?
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 8:19:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 7:49:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/6/2015 4:21:46 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/6/2015 5:28:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
That's interesting. I can completely see your points on the self defence issue, I suppose because I never feel in any danger of a criminal attacking me as I live in a rural area with a low crime rate. I'm guessing your views are in the minority in California though and I'm guessing gun related crime is surely lower in California then Utah? You hear these stories of these deranged idiots going into schools to brutally lots of innocent kids and it just annoys me that they often obtained their weapons legally. As I've mentioned in earlier posts in this forum a UK style checking system to ensure dangerous individuals and people with mental health issues don't get hold of guns. I can see how carrying guns in places where animal attacks are a possibility should be allowed though. I suppose there are mountain lions in California.

I would say the crime rate in California is higher. More people, more lunatics, more inner city violence in areas like LA, etc. I could be wrong, and I'm not going to look up any statistic because every stat says something different. But it's like I said, I don't hear about much crime in Utah. On the other hand, a man was shot dead about five minutes away from where I live. The gun may have been bought legally, who knows. But it's a crime to have one in public, and the murderer was breaking that law during the act. I don't think he would've been carrying it openly.

The whole idea of allowing people to carry is that if someone else decides to start a shooting, or whatever the crime is, the good guy has the option of ending it right there. I have heard of mass shootings stopped early by normal citizens carrying guns. What if a citizen was carrying one during the bank robbery I mentioned earlier? It could have prevented an hour long firefight that resulted in several police officers and civilians being injured. Or the man who was stabbed to death. He could have had the option of backing off, pulling out his firearm, and shooting anyone who lunged at him. If it takes a test or a permit or some kind of background check for me to be able to carry, that's fine. I would just prefer to have some kind of defense just in case a punch doesn't quite cut it.

As for school shootings, I think we should have some sort of armed guard on every school campus, with his own little office to stay in until he's called to action (that way no idiot kid goes for his gun during recess). The bad guy always kills himself before someone else can get him, so the armed guard would theoretically end it quicker than the police could.

And yes, there are mountain lions in some areas of California. In fact, I carry a sidearm while hunting to protect myself from them. Whether I will think to use it while I'm being mauled to death, I don't know--but I'd rather have it than not.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense in fairness. I suppose California has a much greater population density than Utah? I personally am still concerned about the possibility of two guys/ girls getting into an argument on the street or maybe a dispute on the highway over a minor crash or something, that in a normal scenario would lead to a fist fight, possibly escalating into a gun fight. It's bound to happen occasionally but obviously the counter argument is the criminals commiting crime who could potentially be stopped by the general public. What type of hunting are you into?

Well ask yourself this question. If you had a gun, and you got into an accident and engaged in verbal harrasment? Would you pull a gun? The answer is probably no. Neither would I or 99% of the gun-carrying public.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 9:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 8:19:11 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 9/6/2015 7:49:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/6/2015 4:21:46 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/6/2015 5:28:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
That's interesting. I can completely see your points on the self defence issue, I suppose because I never feel in any danger of a criminal attacking me as I live in a rural area with a low crime rate. I'm guessing your views are in the minority in California though and I'm guessing gun related crime is surely lower in California then Utah? You hear these stories of these deranged idiots going into schools to brutally lots of innocent kids and it just annoys me that they often obtained their weapons legally. As I've mentioned in earlier posts in this forum a UK style checking system to ensure dangerous individuals and people with mental health issues don't get hold of guns. I can see how carrying guns in places where animal attacks are a possibility should be allowed though. I suppose there are mountain lions in California.

I would say the crime rate in California is higher. More people, more lunatics, more inner city violence in areas like LA, etc. I could be wrong, and I'm not going to look up any statistic because every stat says something different. But it's like I said, I don't hear about much crime in Utah. On the other hand, a man was shot dead about five minutes away from where I live. The gun may have been bought legally, who knows. But it's a crime to have one in public, and the murderer was breaking that law during the act. I don't think he would've been carrying it openly.

The whole idea of allowing people to carry is that if someone else decides to start a shooting, or whatever the crime is, the good guy has the option of ending it right there. I have heard of mass shootings stopped early by normal citizens carrying guns. What if a citizen was carrying one during the bank robbery I mentioned earlier? It could have prevented an hour long firefight that resulted in several police officers and civilians being injured. Or the man who was stabbed to death. He could have had the option of backing off, pulling out his firearm, and shooting anyone who lunged at him. If it takes a test or a permit or some kind of background check for me to be able to carry, that's fine. I would just prefer to have some kind of defense just in case a punch doesn't quite cut it.

As for school shootings, I think we should have some sort of armed guard on every school campus, with his own little office to stay in until he's called to action (that way no idiot kid goes for his gun during recess). The bad guy always kills himself before someone else can get him, so the armed guard would theoretically end it quicker than the police could.

And yes, there are mountain lions in some areas of California. In fact, I carry a sidearm while hunting to protect myself from them. Whether I will think to use it while I'm being mauled to death, I don't know--but I'd rather have it than not.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense in fairness. I suppose California has a much greater population density than Utah? I personally am still concerned about the possibility of two guys/ girls getting into an argument on the street or maybe a dispute on the highway over a minor crash or something, that in a normal scenario would lead to a fist fight, possibly escalating into a gun fight. It's bound to happen occasionally but obviously the counter argument is the criminals commiting crime who could potentially be stopped by the general public. What type of hunting are you into?

Well ask yourself this question. If you had a gun, and you got into an accident and engaged in verbal harrasment? Would you pull a gun? The answer is probably no. Neither would I or 99% of the gun-carrying public.

No i wouldent but its the minority, that 1% or less that are the problem. I acknowledge I live in an area where the risk of me being attacked is so low it would cause people to think I was paranoid if I carried a gun in local town's. Personally I think society is a healthier place without people feeling the need to carry guns but I do see how it can at times be beneficial. Do you think it is a society to at least aim for? The other key thing that ironmaiden bought up was the risk of animal attacks in certain areas of the US which I sent a risk at all in the UK. I would personally find it a strange decision if the UK parliament voted through a bill allowing people the freedom to carry firearms in the streets. I admit though I have never been to the USA and I accept their is a different culture and attitude towards gun ownership. I'm guessing you are a supporter of the republican party?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 9:56:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 9:21:21 PM, beng100 wrote:
No i wouldent but its the minority, that 1% or less that are the problem. I acknowledge I live in an area where the risk of me being attacked is so low it would cause people to think I was paranoid if I carried a gun in local town's. Personally I think society is a healthier place without people feeling the need to carry guns but I do see how it can at times be beneficial. Do you think it is a society to at least aim for? The other key thing that ironmaiden bought up was the risk of animal attacks in certain areas of the US which I sent a risk at all in the UK. I would personally find it a strange decision if the UK parliament voted through a bill allowing people the freedom to carry firearms in the streets. I admit though I have never been to the USA and I accept their is a different culture and attitude towards gun ownership. I'm guessing you are a supporter of the republican party?

I'm a conservative, so in a way yes. I wouldn't call myself a republican though.

What you said earlier about two people getting in an argument and eventually a gunfight is kind of true. There would be incidents like this. However, like Anderson and even you said, more than 99% would avoid that at all costs. Something to consider is that in a situation like that, one person might be acting purely in a defensive manner, using his weapon only because the other pulled his. Trust me, I don't want unnecessary gunfights to erupt any more than anyone else does. I could be caught in the middle--my grandma actually was.

And I do agree in a way that a society is healthier if its people don't feel the need to carry a gun. Where I live, many if not most people don't really care for guns and don't feel that need. Part of me thinks that they're a bit misguided though, because crime still exists and anyone could become a victim at any point. Call it paranoia, that's fine. But I work as a cashier in a fast food pizza joint and am aware of the possibility that I could be the victim of a robbery one day. There was an armed robbery at a store (same company--my apologies, I feel weird putting down too much information online), and the cashier was shot, despite doing what the robbers told her. She ended up being okay. It was a gun crime, I get it, but it did take place in California, where theoretically the laws are supposed to prevent that. And I do think it would be weird to carry a gun at work, but if I could, I would.

If you don't feel the need to carry a gun, that's great. Chances are, you'll never need one. But for those of us who would rather have one with us, we shouldn't be denied that right. In my opinion.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 9:58:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 9:56:03 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/6/2015 9:21:21 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm guessing you are a supporter of the republican party?

I'm a conservative, so in a way yes. I wouldn't call myself a republican though.

Just realized the question wasn't for me, sorry!
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:42:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 9:58:27 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/6/2015 9:56:03 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 9/6/2015 9:21:21 PM, beng100 wrote:
I'm guessing you are a supporter of the republican. party?

I'm a conservative, so in a way yes. I wouldn't call myself a republican though.

Just realized the question wasn't for me, sorry!

No problem, American politics is quite right wing really, in the UK people would say my views are quite far to the right, but in america they would be classed as centre right most probably. I suppose personal experience effects opinion on matters like this. If you have witnessed incidents or heard of incidents happening locally or to people you know it can obviously shape your opinion on matters like this. Maybe if I knew lots of cases locally where people were brutally murdered or where someone shot a criminal about to commit murder I would think differently.