The right to bear arms.

[apey]

does it really matter what type of weapon the criminal had? look at any weapon. a 38 or anything else it doesn't really matter. if someone is gonna go out and kill people then it's going to happen no matter what.

i have an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic. i bought it when i was in the military. i had to qualify every 6 months used it for target practice.
so not everyone that has a semi-auto go out and kill folks.

the question was? was it a good thing the guard had a gun.

But that does matter. Making sure you can aim properly is hardly what I'd call a proper qualification. Seriously, do people use semi-automatics for anything other than killing people (target practice is just preperation)? Rifles can be used for hunting and home defense, but can't fire a full clip into a crowd.

As for the guard, it's natural that he'd been armed. Random people carrying encourages vigilantes to crop up and allows random people to make crucial decisions about often confusing and frightening situations. It hardly would make me feel safer to know random people were packing heat.

Watch the news man. SHE was an ex cop I.e a private citizen she was Not required to have a gun it was her personal CHOICE n thank god she had it or we would have had more casualties!!!!!

[Koesen]

I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

Every country has the right to make its own gun laws, and if most people want to be able to carry guns, they should.

However, the often repeated claim that more guns equals more safety is a blatant lie. It's not even a mistake, cause the statistics are and always have been absolutely clear.

Americans are far more likely to possess a weapon of some kind, often a firearm, than Europeans, and the American homicide in a good year is easily twice as high as the European rate in a bad year. Check the murder rate page on Wikipedia if you don't want to take my word for it.

Yes, if you are in a school/mall/church and some wacko opens fire, you're better off if you have a gun yourself. However, few if any gun owners ever stop to wonder why these attacks happen so much more often in the gun friendly USA than in the rest of the industrialized world.

What law Americans live by, is entirely their own affair, but the safety argument is complete bogus.

[MeDeFe]

Carrying guns should be outlawed, but everyone should be allowed to carry a sword. Swords also look a lot cooler than guns.

[btownmeggy]

I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

LINK???

Let's see, my friend is a specialist in the international trade of small arms, so he's always talking about countries with LOTS of guns "in circulation", places like... DRC... Liberia... Afghanistan...

[war_bloodline]

If everyone has a gun, and one person goes insane then people should be sane enough to shoot him.

If guns are taken away from the public, the people who have no reason to own guns will find a way to still get them, which leaves the ones who are sane out in the open with noting to fight back with.


Swords are clever, yet to kill a man by hand then by trigger takes more heart, which leaves alot of people just standing there doing nothing to something that needs to be resolved. True a person with a gun can have trouble shooting at someone making trouble, but to hold a hand out to kill someone within 2 to 1 feet of you has to be one heck of a challange then being 10 to 30 yards away, because you never see their face, you never see what they look at, or what they try to do.

I have never killed a man before, but I was standing next to someone who's camper exploded at the campground I work at, he died right next to me and I remember the nightmare so well.


So guns beat swords.

[Koesen]

I think different kinds of logic apply to different cultures.

The USA are by industrialized standards a very violent country, so allowing people to be armed may be the better thing there. But in Europe, the right to bear arms is far more restricted and the homicide rates are a whole lot lower.

[war_bloodline]

I think different kinds of logic apply to different cultures.

The USA are by industrialized standards a very violent country, so allowing people to be armed may be the better thing there. But in Europe, the right to bear arms is far more restricted and the homicide rates are a whole lot lower.

What could bring the level down in America?


We argue on stupid things, we treat people like crap and that's just one of many reasons why the level is up.

[comic boy]

I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

LINK???

Let's see, my friend is a specialist in the international trade of small arms, so he's always talking about countries with LOTS of guns "in circulation", places like... DRC... Liberia... Afghanistan...

I was being Satirical, clearly the opposite is true

[Heimdall]

The USA are by industrialized standards a very violent country, so allowing people to be armed may be the better thing there.

My personal thoughts are there should be more stringent laws towards gunmakers, not gun owners.

Why are gunmakers allowed to make Assault Rifles for non-military use????

Why is it so easy to buy guns legally or on the black market?

Force the gun makers to be more responsible and insane people won't end-up with a M-16 in their hands.

Canada has been doing well, but there are more and more guns coming from the US and these guns are ending up in the wrong hands. There's been quite a bit of shootings in the last little while up here.

[btownmeggy]

I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

LINK???

Let's see, my friend is a specialist in the international trade of small arms, so he's always talking about countries with LOTS of guns "in circulation", places like... DRC... Liberia... Afghanistan...

I was being Satirical, clearly the opposite is true

OH dear, it's hard to tell sometimes. Everyday I see a new post by Napoleon Ier that makes me laugh and laugh and laugh... but he's not joking.

[The1exile]

If everyone has a gun, and one person goes insane then people should be sane enough to shoot him.

So what, 3-4 people die?

If no-one has a gun, no-one dies from being shot in a killing spree by a random madman.

You think it'll happen anyway? The est of the world proves otherwise.

If you really think having a gun is necessary, then get a rifle/shotgun/whatever and sit in your hallway with the barrel pointed at the door. Handguns and assault rifles are made with the sole purpose of killing the other guy. You're going to get more homicides that way. At least check out the stats for how many people in the US accidentally shoot their kids because they think it's a burglar sneaking around.

[war_bloodline]

If everyone has a gun, and one person goes insane then people should be sane enough to shoot him.

So what, 3-4 people die?

If no-one has a gun, no-one dies from being shot in a killing spree by a random madman.
You think it'll happen anyway? The est of the world proves otherwise.

If you really think having a gun is necessary, then get a rifle/shotgun/whatever and sit in your hallway with the barrel pointed at the door. Handguns and assault rifles are made with the sole purpose of killing the other guy. You're going to get more homicides that way. At least check out the stats for how many people in the US accidentally shoot their kids because they think it's a burglar sneaking around.

No true...
If metal was not made to form the gun, the bullets, the knifes, and the swords.
If rocks were not on earth as for many other things, then I would share your same views. Just because someone does not have a gun, does not mean another is not willing to kill in another way (maybe even a worse way then shooting). And if someone is attacking you it does not make it a good idea to run up to them to punch then in the chest, you would want to stay away and defend from a distance.

[The1exile]

Just because someone does not have a gun, does not mean another is not willing to kill in another way (maybe even a worse way then shooting).

Just because I don't have a nuclear arsenal doesn't mean I don't want to destroy the world. But keeping it away from me is probably still a good idea.

And if someone is attacking you it does not make it a good idea to run up to them to punch then in the chest, you would want to stay away and defend from a distance.

You can't defend from a gun. And if someone punches you in the chest, chances are you will be able to hit back. If someone shoots you in the head, you probably won't be able to respond.

[Koesen]

I think different kinds of logic apply to different cultures.

The USA are by industrialized standards a very violent country, so allowing people to be armed may be the better thing there. But in Europe, the right to bear arms is far more restricted and the homicide rates are a whole lot lower.

What could bring the level down in America?

Good question. Unfortunately, I have no easy answer for it. I think it would require a massive change in the American psyche, and frankly, I don't see that happening in the next few decades.

There are so many guns in the States now, that banning them would probably be meaningless and ineffective anyway.

Besides, at the end of the day, it's not the gun that kills but the person carrying it. Though I disagree with the thought that more guns equals more safety (or freedom), the real problem is the people. And you can't change people just be rewriting a law.

I think Americans are stuck with their homicide rates for the time being, and I don't really pity them for it, since it's really their own doing. If you insist on allowing every Joe Blow and his dog to carry guns, expects guns to go off on a regular basis.

[comic boy]

I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

LINK???

Let's see, my friend is a specialist in the international trade of small arms, so he's always talking about countries with LOTS of guns "in circulation", places like... DRC... Liberia... Afghanistan...

I was being Satirical, clearly the opposite is true

OH dear, it's hard to tell sometimes. Everyday I see a new post by Napoleon Ier that makes me laugh and laugh and laugh... but he's not joking.

Yep that guy is either seriously disturbed or just trolling for effect, I really hope its the later

[war_bloodline]

You can't defend from a gun. And if someone punches you in the chest, chances are you will be able to hit back. If someone shoots you in the head, you probably won't be able to respond.

Fight fire with fire.

If you can't defend from a gun, then that means your adversary is in the same bucket of water as you, if you have one also.

Which is a way of defending yourself.

[The1exile]

Fight fire with fire.

If you can't defend from a gun, then that means your adversary is in the same bucket of water as you, if you have one also.

Which is a way of defending yourself.

So you want to shoot people because they might shoot you first? Do you not see the blatant flaw there?

Welcome to the world, population: 1. He/she killed everyone else.

[heavycola]

everyone should own a gun. Guns are made to kill one person at a time, unlike nuclear weapons, which are meant to kill thousands of people at once. And you cannot be ABSOLUTELY SURE you are going to drop it on 100% terrorists and/or communists, which is why guns will have to do. Even though not allowing americans to own nuclear weapons and f-15s and clusterbombs and landmines is in clear breach of the constitution. One more reason to vote RON PAUL!


Free gun ownership makes perfect logical sense. If everyone in the world had a gun, there would be far fewer gun deaths. I cannot see how anyone can dispute this.

[war_bloodline]

So you want to shoot people because they might shoot you first? Do you not see the blatant flaw there?

Welcome to the world, population: 1. He/she killed everyone else.

In case the "person in question" is a threat to your life, yes.

Not like out in public, but like the "Make My Day Law", where the "person in question" is in your house trying to harm you in anyway.


Then you have the right to draw your weapon.

I am not saying that you shoot them out right, what I am saying is that when you know that the "person in question" is trying to harm you, then, and only then do you open fire. Yet show the weapon to show this "person in question" that you have a weapon to warn him.

In public that should go for if you know the gunmen is trying to harm someone, not just you.

[Heimdall]

Free gun ownership makes perfect logical sense. If everyone in the world had a gun, there would be far fewer gun deaths. I cannot see how anyone can dispute this.

too funny

And if there are more cars, there will be less car accidents.

[The1exile]

In public that goes for if you know the gunmen is trying to harm someone, not just you.

But I would rather have my situation where he wouldn't be a gunman, on account of not having a gun.

I'm not going to go punching random people on the street, but if someone goes crazy and starts attacking people - probably will.

The difference is my way gets less people killed.

But if heavy's sarcasm doesn't convince you, I never will.

[freezie]

(well if you look at canada where everyone also has weapons, they don't have as much kills as the us,)

...What?

Guns are not allowed, beside hunting. BArely anyone has guns, those who do got them illegally.

At least, many miles around where I live. And I expect the same in other regions.

[Koesen]

If everyone in the world had a gun, there would be far fewer gun deaths. I cannot see how anyone can dispute this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Quote:

Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries although this is explained by the fact that criminals in America are more likely to use firearms.

You cannot see how anyone can dispute this, because you choose to ignore the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

Compare the homicide rate of the US to the relatively gun free countries of the European Union. They're twice as high as the European average.[/i]

[Koesen]

(well if you look at canada where everyone also has weapons, they don't have as much kills as the us,)

...What?

Guns are not allowed, beside hunting. BArely anyone has guns, those who do got them illegally.

At least, many miles around where I live. And I expect the same in other regions.

I live in the Canadian countryside north of Toronto, and guns are fairly common here. I can't be bothered to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the average Canadian is as likely to possess a gun as the average American.

[bloknayrb]

I think that the majority of killing is done with stolen guns, so I don't think making permits to get harder would be easier. I think instead there should be a national training program for everyone who has a gun license so that they all actually know how to use and store them. If we can't legally own guns, how will we protect ourselves against the people who have them illegally?