PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     i'm lost

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
guyincognito

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why does japan (a country that doesnt allow guns) have only 39 gun-related deaths a year while we (the US) have OVER ELEVEN THOUSAND.   how is it that we still allow guns in this country?

granted, guns probably do protect law abiding citizens on occasion...FROM PEOPLE WITH OTHER GUNS.  see the pattern? and i can guarantee you that the number of people that have actually used or needed guns for the so-called "self protection" is nowhere near the 11,000 or so killed by them.

does it also strike anyone else as odd that the biggest supporter for gun ownership/control in the US (the NRA) was founded the same year that the Ku Klux Klan (kkk) was declared an illegal terrorist organization?

seriously, give me a good reason what the advantages are for common people to have guns.  

and don't give me that "how will we protect ourselves if german foot soldiers come in and invade our strategically unimportant neighborhoods with their highly trained munitions experts and small-arms fire imperveous tanks?" crap.  they'd just bomb us if they wanted us dead.

no sarcasm intended though, i just want to hear the reasons of people who think that guns are a good idea for the common man and woman to own.  and also i'd like to know how those reasons outweigh the ones i've stated above
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:13 AM on November 8, 2003 | IP
RooK

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

First thing that comes to my mind: how many deaths were caused by objects other than guns?  You must also realize that Japan has a population about 1/3 that of the US.

For self-defense statistics, you'll need look up John Lott.  Most cases of firearms used in self-defense are either downplayed or not mentioned at all.  One particular incident, in which two ex-military students went to their vehicles, got firearms and stopped a college shooting comes to mind.  Even though they told the press what happened, most the stories basicly said they 'wrestled the man down' or 'held him until police arrived', completely dismissing the fact that they had and used firearms.  Also, most self-defense situations in which a firearm prevents crime, a shot is not even fired.  The criminal flees the scene, thus not much fan fare is given to it from the media.

I even had a family friend who defended herself at her home with a handgun, shooting one of three intruders.  She had stayed home, not feeling well, instead of going to church that day, so the husband and son left.  Three people who had apparently been planning this, broke into her house.  She confronted them and told them to leave, and when one charged with a hammer he had (note that they didn't use a firearm) she fired.  Anyway, it prevented her from being hurt or possibly killed, and that's good enough for me.

Uses for firearms far outstrip what I can possibly list here, but the two major catagories, beyond self-defense, are hunting and sport/target shooting (which is no different than racing cars).  Target shooting is basicly self expanatory.

Hunting: Animals, without natural limitations, continue to spread beyond the means of the enviroment to support them. This means they will eventually start invading other areas for food sources (gardens etc) and once those food sources are gone, they will die of starvation (with the bodies creating disease). Large populations in a small area can also lead to more disease, and in the case of deer, more car accidents. Hunting as it is now has hunters paying for license, deer tags, duck stamps and so on, funding not only the support of wildlife conservation but just harvesting the surplus of these animals for enviromental reasons. Some people even depend on the meat obtained through hunting to help with buying meat for meals. If hunting wasn't allowed, the wildlife departments would have to do it anyway. At that point, not only are we still killing animals, but were losing money paying people to do it for us and the meat from most of those destroyed would probably go to waste.

Lastly, gun banning only has negative effects on limiting 'law abiding' citizens from owning certain firearms.  It does nothing to really prevent firearms of any type from being used in crime.  Unlike Japan, we are bordered by two nations who allow citizen gun ownership (Canada & Mexico) and even if we did ban them, they would get smuggled in.  Best example of this is the infamous Hollywood Shootout in California.  One of those illegal (see, they were already banned) full-auto AK47s were smuggled in from Mexico.  No gun laws past, present or future could prevent this.  But the police did obtain legal AR15 rifles from a local public gun-shop that the owner graciously loaned, which gave them the firepower needed to punch through the crimanls' body armor.  Without these 'general population' rifles, many more people might have died that day.

Hope my reply hasn't been too long-winded for you.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 7:44 PM on November 10, 2003 | IP
guyincognito

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

long winded replies are definately always welcome!  i'll probably give one myself.

the amount of deaths caused by objects other than guns is irrelevant.  are you suggesting that since guns are outlawed in japan, the number of knife (as a generic term) murders would increase to compensate?  they would definately increase but it is almost impossible that they'd reach anywhere near the same numbers.  the bottom line is that people will kill eachother (or will try).  why make it easier for them?

while i did realize the difference in population between the two countries, the revised number of people killed with fire arms is still staggering...about 3,627 people per year (this is if the US had 1/3 of its current population).  even this reduced number is far more than Japan and several other countries that outlaw gun ownership (like austrailia etc.) COMBINED.  as i said before, people that buy guns for self defense most likely buy them to protect themselves from other people with guns.  guns, of course, being the root of the problem.  escaping from a person with a knife is probably much easier that escaping from a person with a gun.

you also have to consider that not having a gun would most likely make law-breakers think twice before i dunno, say...robbing a bank.  its kinda hard to stab someone with all that glass in the way.  i would deduce that the same would go for many other crimes as well....including murder.

i definately feel for your family friend and what could have happened to her.  but i can give you more stories about people being murdered with guns than you can give me about people that defend themselves with them.  i win.

i would give my life right now if it meant that i would save over 11,000 people a year.  wouldnt you?  it may be harsh to say this, but your friend's life isnt worth any more or any less than each of those 11,000.

ok, now lets move on to hunting and target shooting.

target shooting is pointless in itself and is hardly worthy of recognition.  nor is it an excuse that can justify letting people own guns.  enough said.

hunting:  again, this is a minor reason that cant justify keeping guns around.  if there were to be a tax for "wildlife control," i'd pay it gladly.  or we could just tax the ELEVEN THOUSAND PEOPLE A YEAR THAT WOULDNT DIE. (heh, sorry for the caps)  that comes awfully close to putting a price on human life.  it seems to me like we've done that somewhere before in our history.  

and as it stands, we have enough manpower and resources to almost completely close off and patrol the border between mexico and the US.  why dont we?  because its not good for buisness.  scary, huh?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:10 PM on November 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the death caused by non-guns in a society that bans them is completely relevant.  When one method of committing a crime is removed, many will migrate to another method.  Also, people hold up banks, stores, etc. with lots of weapons (or mock weapons) besides guns.  Some use knives, others threaten with bombs (whether they have one or not), or basicly any other object that can cause bodily harm.  There is only glass in the exterior of banks.  I don't know about you, but on the inside it's always face-to-face contact.

Due to the elemination of most guns in England, they are having a spike in violent crimes and a police officer's main threat is a knife, which many criminals use.  Another tidbit: most confrontations happen within 7 yards.  A knife or handgun within this distance is dangerous, so escape isn't really a factor in either case, it's either defend yourself, or succumb to the attackers demands/actions.  As for the selfdefense issue, I gave you the information needed to find the numbers.  Estimates for people saved by guns are in the hundreds of thousands (not all are reported to the police for recording).

Saying one life is or isn't worth another really isn't relevant.  Fact is, people die everyday.  More people are killed with cars (a regulated item where people are trained in the use of) and fires/burns every year than guns.  Fact is, it's not honest, law-abiding people like me or my friend that kill people with firearms, it's the gang bangers, drug smugglers and people who have committed other small crimes.  Statistics hide many things and should always be eyed with some scepticism.  Some of those deaths you list are even criminals killing criminals, I can't say I have sympathy for any of those people.  It is already illegal for them to posses guns, so how are instituting laws banning firearms going to stop them from using these weapons?  They won't turn in their banned guns like law-abiding citizens will.  I think you also missed the part on guns being brought into the country illegally, despite laws preventing such.

If target shooting is pointless, then so are all other recreational activities such as football, baseball, autoracing, soccer etc.  Many people die each year from all those sports combined, but we still let them exist because they are a past time of enjoyment and sportsmanship.  Same thing with target shooting... It is an olympic sport you know?

On hunting, once again it's the criminals killing the majority of people out there.  Not average Joe who hunts with his son or daughter (more than what most urban parents do) and teaches them the responsibility of conservation and firearm usage.  Eliminating hunting would do nothing more than take more money from our pockets while doing very little to take firearms from the hands of criminals.  People are currently paying for this willingly, why instate a tax and force people to pay it?  Chances are, even from a  tax basis, they still wouldn't be able to produce the same amount of money that hunters provide.

I'll also begin here with the 2nd Amendment.  If you read it, as in relation to the rest of the Constitution, it basicly states that the public has the right to have firearms for militia purposes; basicly a citizen formed army.  This is there, not only to prevent against invading forces, but that of our own goverment.  That was the whole reason America was formed in the first place.  Eliminating firearms from law-abiding citizens is nothing more than stripping citizens of their freedom.  If it goes away, they could even remove the 1st Amendment.  It is not us who kill, it is those who break the law.  If someone is to defy Man's and God's (if you believe in such) law of killing another person, then breaking the law of importing or possesing illegal weapons isn't going to matter to them.

Also, your comment of "i win" really disturbed me.  It isn't about who's wrong or right, it is mainly about reaching an understanding.  With over 300million guns in this country and over 100million (legal) gun owners, you are more likely to die of medical malpractice than from that of a gun.  You are more likely to drown in your bathtub than to be accidently shot.  You would be much better off in trying to save lives by promoting better doctor or driver training.  Considering the number of firearms out there, it is actually one of the more safe aspects of our daily life.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:14 PM on November 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am researching gun control laws for a persuasive essay and I would like to thank both of you for your comments. They are appreciated. I would have to say that both sides have very strong points but after reading what you had to say, I would be against too many gun control laws. Laws restricting the ownership of assault guns are good. I would be against a complete ban of firearms. It would be bad for the economy, and (because I go duck hunting with my dad) dissapointing. Thanks again, I swear I wont plagerize. :-)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:07 PM on December 13, 2003 | IP
Arkalius

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Japan is an interesting case when it comes to murder rates vs gun laws. Here's something interesting...

Add together japan's murder rate and suicide rate and compare it to the same sum of america's murder rate and suicide rate. The numbers will be about the same. What does this have to do with guns? Well, nothing directly. My point with this, though, is that Japan has a very different culture from much of the rest of the world. This is the most likely reason why gun crime is so low there (and also why the suicide rate is so high).



-------
-Arkalius<br>
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:10 PM on September 11, 2004 | IP
summer_girl

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yup, i see y yer lost!!! so am i now! HAHAHAHA good luck!


-------
Summer_girl(*)
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:56 PM on November 13, 2004 | IP
Serevok

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Hey bro, move to japan. They are all happy shiny people over there, low suicide rate... and no crap there are less gun related deaths.... there are less guns... but if you think guns are the only way people die you should just eat some Ajax. Just because some other countries have less gun related deaths dosn't mean they have less deaths in general... Britain, for example, has far fewer gun related fatalities each year, but why don't you take a look at how many murders happen there that don't involve a gun? as I have said before, you don't like guns, MOVE! don't screw it up for me.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:30 AM on April 12, 2005 | IP
Relic

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rather then have the government foucs so much money and energy on gun control, shouldn't they be focusing on other things that lead to death, such as starvation and desiese?
Honestly, there are many more ways to die then just getting shot, and if you have some delusion that you couldn't drop dead after taking one step after getting ot of bed, you need a reality check.
Japan has strickt gun laws, but i'm sure their muder numbers are up there, but you'd have to dig pretty deep to get the real numbers since I do believe they have orginized crime over there.

(Edited by Relic 4/12/2005 at 5:39 PM).


-------
There is no such thing as 'unnatrual death' all death is natural, how ever the cause.
Icurus. What are you saying little man, you don't like Zep? - Brock Samson
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 2:49 PM on April 12, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lets not talk about japan.  Do you what the safest nation in the world is?  Switerland. and did u also know that every house has at least one fully automatic assualt rifle.  Lets see Great Britian and Austlia have very strict gun control but when great britian banned handguns in 97 by 98 handgun crime had doubled. Ive got all sorts of other facts on countries where their culture is almost identical to ours that shows that more guns in the law abiding citizens hands means for safer places.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:37 PM on May 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guns are there to kill or harm. Full stop. You're far more likely to use a gun if you are able to have one, than if you do not.  It doesn't matter how many deaths are caused by things other than guns - the fact is, if they're restricted/banned, there will be less deaths caused by guns. How is that a bad thing?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:08 AM on May 5, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please tell me this wonderful plan to get all guns off the streets.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 8:58 PM on May 6, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, for a start, how about putting across the message that they do more HARM than good by, oh i don't know, criminalising the ownership of one?

Think about it! You say "oh, but that won't get all the guns off the streets and people will still find them," and this is probably true - but by legalizing their ownership, do you HONESTLY think that this isn't a worse situation?!

I can't believe a country could condone the use and ownership of a deadly weapon in such a way - think about all the shootings in highschools that have gone on! How can you continue to defend such a thing?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 9:40 PM on May 6, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can i defend such a thing?
"This year will go down in history for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."- Adolf Hitler

How do u expect me to defend myself then? Police response time is measured in mintues but home break ins are measured in seconds.  Crime in England has sky rocked since they banned their guns.  Why is this?  Because law abiding citizens had thier guns removed and criminals still had them.  The people that use the guns to kill will always have the guns and the means to get the guns no matter what laws are passed.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 4:35 PM on May 7, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Erm lets say this about gun crimes in britain, what you just said is complete bull shit. I know of nobody and I mean nobody that owned a gun before they were legal and I know of nobody who has been broken into at all nether mind been in a position to defend themselves if they had a gun.
1. Crime in britain has not sky rocketed
2. The increase is not public gun ownership related.

Less than one in a hudred people owned guns in england before the law changed, probably even less, so don't tell me that my country is safer without a minority of law abiding citivens with guns.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:20 PM on May 7, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 4:35 PM on May 7, 2005 :
How can i defend such a thing?
"This year will go down in history for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."- Adolf Hitler

How do u expect me to defend myself then? Police response time is measured in mintues but home break ins are measured in seconds.  Crime in England has sky rocked since they banned their guns.  Why is this?  Because law abiding citizens had thier guns removed and criminals still had them.  The people that use the guns to kill will always have the guns and the means to get the guns no matter what laws are passed.


Hitler. You're quoting Hitler. Alllrighty...

Guns are not the solution to crime problems. Personally, i believe only law enforecment officers should carry one (in Australia they do). If you're worried about break ins, lock your door at night. Install a security alarm. Get a dog. Lock yourself in the basement 24/7. Whatever. Prevention is faaar more effective, my gun-loving friend, faaar more effective (and safer!).  

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 06:23 AM on May 13, 2005 | IP
wayneinFL

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"does it also strike anyone else as odd that the biggest supporter for gun ownership/control in the US (the NRA) was founded the same year that the Ku Klux Klan (kkk) was declared an illegal terrorist organization?"

Putting the NRA in league with the K.K.K? I saw that in a clip from south park M.Moore put into Bowling for Columbine. B.S., as was most of the movie. (Note: I say movie, not documentary.)

NRA was headed by Ulysses S. Grant. Do you really think he would wage a war against the South and slavery, then support the K.K.K. ?


-------
wayneinFL
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 2:17 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you think that america has such a problem with gun crime?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:19 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question? Everyone keeps saying how 11,000 people were killed by guns last year, but how many of those people were killed by law abiding citizens that went through the proper checks and waiting periods.
It is obvious to me that most of the killings were performed by illegal guns.
Now if you really want to make guns safer and less available, handle them like the courts are handling people who die from smoking related illness, SUE THE MANUFACTURER. You want to see most of the illegal guns off the streets, make the one who makes them more responsible for who ends up with them.
They have doone the same with DWI laws and started sueing the bars and clubs that sold the driver all the alcohol and then let him drive away to kill someone.


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 10:09 PM on May 17, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but with cigarette companies, those who sue usually sue on the grounds that the companies witheld the dangers of their products (or, at least, in the cases i've heard of). Obviously, you can't lie about the dangers of guns (perhaps only to the very stupid or naive...).

Do you mean that victims of gun violence (or their families) should sue the manufacturers? Cos that would be effective (if they were indeed sold illegally), yet i still feel there would be a degree of hypocrisy in doing so, due to the legality of owning a firearm still remaining in the law.

And as long as no one tried to sue the gun manufacturers for supplying THEM with a gun and, i dunno, not telling them about the dangers of them or something (there's just something about americans and suing...). That would anger me beyond belief!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:01 AM on May 18, 2005 | IP
linewalker

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lets kinda start over for a sec... to all the anti gun ppl Question: would irradicating fire arms from this country be posible...

I have heared this debate stragaty used and it is the only one that ever results in some kind of resolution. so please anti guners just answer the question if you trule want to debate. if you dont and you just want to argue and not learn then go argue with children. so go ahead and answer. so i can move on to the next question.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 5:42 PM on September 18, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Erradicating them completely? No, it would be near impossible. But making them illegal to own would work just that little bit better than preaching that everyone has a right to own one.

The argument that 'it-would-be-impossible-to-erradicate-firearms-entirely-therefore-we-shouldn't-even-try' really isn't valid.  
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:30 AM on September 22, 2005 | IP
The Balance

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh it’s so late right now, but I have to add to this discussion.
First let me say some things about myself so you can get a feel for my sate of thinking.
I think that guns make it easier for people to harm other people, and if there was a way to make all guns go away; I would say yes, do so. I think that one of the things that make this country so special is the right to own a gun. I am a gun owner.

A few things about Japan: I am by no means an anthropologist, but at my university I do have quite a few Japanese friends and I have always been fascinated by Japanese culture. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison with them because they seem to place blame for problems onto themselves. While in this country, we tend to try to pass the blame to everyone else. I could possibly write an analysis about this, but I want to keep it short and to the point.

K8 says that by making gun ownership illegal, this would prevent crimes. Well it’s been said many times before that criminals will still get guns! I think this is especially true in this country where we have huge un-policed boarders and docks where thousands of tons of drugs come though every day. They think they catch a lot of drugs when they open a shipping container and find it full! I think those drug lords have accountants that have a little column with the heading “expected seizures by cops”. Another problem is that guns are easy to make.

This last point no one talks about but it’s true! I’m not talking about some ‘zip gun’ made from a .22 round and a car antenna (classic example of a zip gun?) I’m talking about a modern machinegun. While hand tools can make a simple gun, a small shop can make just about anything. Same goes for ammo, there’s just not much too it!

The problem with a society that doesn’t have guns is when someone gets a gun, because that person then has all the power. By adding guns to everyone else, it tends to cancel out this power struggle. What do you think of that?

Yes guns are inherently dangerous, accidents will happen and there will be crime. But an America without guns is not America at all.

Also, about suing gun manufactures. I believe this went to the Supreme Court not too long ago and it was ruled unconstitutional that a victim could sue the manufacture.
I believe the case started in the 9th district, which has the most liberal and ‘judicially active’ (read: a personal agenda) judges. It was found legal to sue there, but was then appealed to the Supreme Court.


(Edited by The Balance 9/22/2005 at 1:14 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 1:10 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think i said making gun ownership illegal would prevent crime, because it wouldn't. Making it illegal may, however, lower America's amount of gun-related deaths and violence.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 05:05 AM on September 24, 2005 | IP
Mikhail

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm tired of reading that Australia banned the ownership of firearms... They outlawed certian types only...
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 07:01 AM on July 25, 2006 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll tell you now, any gun-related crime or death in Australia comes as a great surprise to myself whenever it may occur as it seems to occur so rarely in comparison to those occurring in the US. So many people here would have no idea how or where to acquire a firearm if they so wished to use one, due to the obvious lack of places to purchase one. It seems to me that lowering the amount of firearms available to a society will lower the amount of damage caused by said firearms - but commonsense should tell you that before I have to.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:33 AM on July 25, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from guyincognito at 12:13 AM on November 8, 2003 :
why does japan (a country that doesnt allow guns) have only 39 gun-related deaths a year while we (the US) have OVER ELEVEN THOUSAND.   how is it that we still allow guns in this country?

granted, guns probably do protect law abiding citizens on occasion...FROM PEOPLE WITH OTHER GUNS.  see the pattern? and i can guarantee you that the number of people that have actually used or needed guns for the so-called "self protection" is nowhere near the 11,000 or so killed by them.

does it also strike anyone else as odd that the biggest supporter for gun ownership/control in the US (the NRA) was founded the same year that the Ku Klux Klan (kkk) was declared an illegal terrorist organization?

seriously, give me a good reason what the advantages are for common people to have guns.  

and don't give me that "how will we protect ourselves if german foot soldiers come in and invade our strategically unimportant neighborhoods with their highly trained munitions experts and small-arms fire imperveous tanks?" crap.  they'd just bomb us if they wanted us dead.

no sarcasm intended though, i just want to hear the reasons of people who think that guns are a good idea for the common man and woman to own.  and also i'd like to know how those reasons outweigh the ones i've stated above

Sorry I'm a little late for this thread but as far a japan is concerned remember in japan the laws are diffrent like you are guilty until you prove your inocents and most countrys are like this an accusation is as good as a conviction no maranda rights, on phone call, no attorney apointed if you can't aford one, on fair treatment, no 5th amendment to plea, no plea bargans and a host of other laws that protect your rights that you don't have in other countrys. And remember the penaltys are diffrent to.  


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 11:17 PM on August 6, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from guyincognito at 12:13 AM on November 8, 2003 :
why does japan (a country that doesnt allow guns) have only 39 gun-related deaths a year while we (the US) have OVER ELEVEN THOUSAND.   how is it that we still allow guns in this country?

granted, guns probably do protect law abiding citizens on occasion...FROM PEOPLE WITH OTHER GUNS.  see the pattern? and i can guarantee you that the number of people that have actually used or needed guns for the so-called "self protection" is nowhere near the 11,000 or so killed by them.

does it also strike anyone else as odd that the biggest supporter for gun ownership/control in the US (the NRA) was founded the same year that the Ku Klux Klan (kkk) was declared an illegal terrorist organization?

seriously, give me a good reason what the advantages are for common people to have guns.  

and don't give me that "how will we protect ourselves if german foot soldiers come in and invade our strategically unimportant neighborhoods with their highly trained munitions experts and small-arms fire imperveous tanks?" crap.  they'd just bomb us if they wanted us dead.

no sarcasm intended though, i just want to hear the reasons of people who think that guns are a good idea for the common man and woman to own.  and also i'd like to know how those reasons outweigh the ones i've stated above



What is Japans total crime rate?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:56 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from guyincognito at 12:13 AM on November 8, 2003 :
why does japan (a country that doesnt allow guns) have only 39 gun-related deaths a year while we (the US) have OVER ELEVEN THOUSAND.   how is it that we still allow guns in this country?

granted, guns probably do protect law abiding citizens on occasion...FROM PEOPLE WITH OTHER GUNS.  see the pattern? and i can guarantee you that the number of people that have actually used or needed guns for the so-called "self protection" is nowhere near the 11,000 or so killed by them.

does it also strike anyone else as odd that the biggest supporter for gun ownership/control in the US (the NRA) was founded the same year that the Ku Klux Klan (kkk) was declared an illegal terrorist organization?

seriously, give me a good reason what the advantages are for common people to have guns.  

and don't give me that "how will we protect ourselves if german foot soldiers come in and invade our strategically unimportant neighborhoods with their highly trained munitions experts and small-arms fire imperveous tanks?" crap.  they'd just bomb us if they wanted us dead.

no sarcasm intended though, i just want to hear the reasons of people who think that guns are a good idea for the common man and woman to own.  and also i'd like to know how those reasons outweigh the ones i've stated above


Gun realated deaths are errelavant, total death/sucsesful vilent crime is.

One could have 39 gun related death, but how many drouning/stabbings/slashing/raping/vilent crimes do you have?



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:48 PM on May 4, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we want their crime rate, maybe we should (ALL) take their social values?  Is their low rate because of gun control, or something completely different?

The fact is Japan's crime rate is low for crime accross the board, not just murder with guns.

I love how people make crime comparisons and then attribute the complete difference to a single law.  Like the law must be responsible, not other factors.

I bet if Japan legalized murder, their rate would not rise significantly.  I have to belive their low rate is because the citizens of Japan actually believe in a moral code of conduct, not because they simply have a better set of words written on a peice of paper.
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 11:57 AM on May 5, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It would probably take about 300-400 years to "breed" into the US population those Japanese values.

Japan: Gun Control & People Control
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:38 PM on May 5, 2007 | IP
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How does Japan have gun deaths if guns are banned in that country (shock sarcasm)??? So its alright to get killed by a gun in a society that has banned them as long as its not me doing the dying????  Just for the record, not all guns are banned in Australia they are heavily restricted.  You could find all sorts of evidence to support your own personal point of view on guns.  Most peoples minds are heavily influenced by the media and their shock and awe tactics work very well.
A question:  if the USA is so riddled with violence as gun control activasts would have you beleive, then why isn't there a mass exodus of people??? and why do soo many migrants choose to go live in the USA???  

 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 04:18 AM on May 7, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How are people murdered in a country that has made murder illegal (shock sarcasm)???


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:36 AM on May 7, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:36 AM on May 7, 2007 :
How are people murdered in a country that has made murder illegal (shock sarcasm)???


Well doesn't that just prove the point that gun control laws are pointless because only the law-abiding follow the laws?



 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 09:15 AM on May 7, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whats funny is most people who propose gun control dont know jack shit about guns and how they work.Some dont know the difference between a Magazine and a clip.
Emyers might know more than the average anti gunner because of his past army career but I probably know more than him about guns in general.Because I actually own some and I know Emyers probably got rid of all of his guns he had possibly from his army past.Like my step father who had a .22 rifle at one time 18 or more years ago but got rid of it because he felt safer without one.Now he does not have one gun in his house and says his neighborhood is so safe but when I feel like it I will have a revolver in my jacket or side at any time or place.I am not paranoid I just rather be more prepared than my step father and have a nice revolver to look at when I look in my jacket pocket.
If it suits your life style Emyers not having to do anything with guns its your life and business and my business is inspecting my revolver and shotgun and getting familar with using it when I need it and having fun with it at a range too.I might look at a .44 magnum just to spice things up if a dick head would threaten me which probably wont likely happen hopefully because he would have a big hole in his body and I would have a big clean up to look forward too and court costs and stuff I cant afford and I dont want to have to kill or seriously injure someone evil or stupid on drugs or something but if I have to I will only if they threaten me or dont leave my property when I warn them to.Emyers once I think about it .357 magnum sounds more tame indoors than using a .44 magnum in my indoor home.If it would happen outside my house .44 magnum would be excellent but .357 magnum is still plenty though.
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 9:04 PM on May 7, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well doesn't that just prove the point that gun control laws are pointless because only the law-abiding follow the laws?


No, it just proves how stupid of an argument that is.  The point is, only the law-abiding follow laws, so using that argument only works if you are proposing to do away with all laws.  If your argument is that no gun restriction should be allowed because only criminals would have guns is like saying rape shouldn't be against the law because then only criminals would rape.  People can argue all they like that the two are different things, but the argument being used is the same.  The fact that it makes absolutely no sense in one regard should make even the least intelligent realize that it then makes no sense in the other.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:22 PM on May 7, 2007 | IP
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So people only abide by laws, they don't have any morals or conscience??? If rape wasn't against the law then it would be OK to rape????  No gun laws means that people will be using guns for illegal purposes...where does it start and where does it end????
I wish it was as simple as banning or restricting guns to solve problems within society.  
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 03:26 AM on May 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know about you, but I know plenty of people with very little morals or conscience.  Quite often they obey a law only because the consequence is more than they are willing to deal with.  Remove the consequence and you remove the only inhibition they feel towards the law.  Laws do not prevent ANY crime.  They simply create consequences for those who would break them.  If we quit writing parking tickets for people who park in handicap spots or fire lanes, how many more people do you know of that would park in them (I'm sure you know some who do already).  Laws are rarely needed for people with morals, but honestly, how many people do you know with morals?  How does the saying go, character is how you act when nobody is watching?  How often do you see some idiot park in a fire lane because "I'm only running in for a minute"?  How often do you see someone make an illegal turn because "there isn't a cop around"?  If morals were all you needed, we wouldn't need any laws and you certainly wouldn't be arguing the need to own a gun.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:03 AM on May 8, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where did anybody say there shouldn't be any laws? The point is that laws don't stop criminals - only the law-abiding abide by the laws.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:42 PM on May 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Precisely, so using it as an argument for not having any restrictions on weapons ownership is entirely pointless, but people keep using it anyhow.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:09 PM on May 8, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point is where do you draw the line?
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 10:13 PM on May 8, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.