^BUT, it has been proven without doubt that those countries with a gun ban have FAR fewer gun crimes and not just that but far fewer murders in total.
wonzan
No. It has been proven without doubt that gun bans increase violent crime. Such as how the UK's crime rate skyrocketed after implementation of their gun ban.
Your point about it being easy to use a gun can be argued the other way. Vigilantes have never been successful. THey have always ended in needless bloodshed. Giving people weapons and a false sense of authority will just cause clashes. In a situation where one would ignore his neighbour, such as the recent case where two men started shooting each other because one had his lawn defecated on by a dog, if you have a gun in your hand a false sense of entitlement or authority you would be more tempted to assert yourself.
wonzan
Never? Always? No. In any case vigilantes need not carry guns in order to cause harm, it is a totally separate issue unrelated to gun control, unless you believe people are simply not capable of self control and need to be controlled by anointed "experts." If someone is willing to get violent over a dispute, they will use any potential weapon they can find. Shall we ban all kitchen utensils, garden equipment, writing devices, or boxes and packages over a certain weight? Your logic can be (and often enough is) used to ban anything and everything.
In todays civillized society a gun has little meaning in conveying what the people desire from their govt. The egyptians overthrew their govt using bodies and voices for example. This has happened throughout the east actually.Â
wonzan
 So we have progressed past the ideas that people should be able to defend themselves? What have we progressed into, the idea that we can trust government to protect us, although it will take five to ten minutes minimum for to cops to arrive should someone be confronted by a criminal, plenty of time for them to die at the criminals hands, weather or not the criminal subsequently gets away. But why not just ban guns and have some sorta "secret police" (since uniformed police would tip off the bad guys) following each and every citizen twenty four hours a day. It's not like they could also be used to eliminate political dissidents or undesirables like Jews... oh wait...
 To defend yourself is important, but by giving every criminal a gun you handicap yourself again. I MUCH prefer the situation of 2 thieves armed with knives against me armed with a knife vs 2 thieves armed with guns and me armed with a gun. I also think that in the latter case the thieves would be more afraid since they know that just a pull of a trigger could end their life and so they would shoot me first. In the first scenario there is still room for a deal to be struck, i.e. take this and leave, I don't want to fight you.
wonzan
 What will happen after gun control (which will logically extend towards any object which can be construed as a weapon, like knives) is a situation of 2 thieves with guns vs. you with nothing, unless your willing to break the law in order not to be murdered. If you had a gun and they knew it, they simply would not target you and wait for easier, unarmed prey. If they didn't know you had a gun,and engaged you, and you drew your weapon, they might be more likely to shoot immediately, or more likely to run away so as not to die themselves. At least you wouldn't be executed. After all, if you are not armed, why bother negotiating with you when they can just kill you and take what they want, as well as dispose of an incriminating witness.
 Sure there will be cirucmstances where a criminal obtains a gun (which are smuggled from countries where their selling is legal) and you, being a law abiding citizen, won't have one. But these don't have to be fatal and the occurences of such events would naturally diminish greatly, from their already small number, with more countries banning guns.
As far as people that like guns as entertainment, gun ranges and strict memberships can easily be established to satisfy their needs.
wonzan
That circumstance is when they are planning to break the law anyway, and are assuming they wont be caught, which is say every time someone plans to commit a violent crime in a country with bans on guns. If it was common knowledge that most ordinary citizens were carrying guns, a large percentage of potential criminals would know the odds of getting shot while perpetrating a crime would be astronomically high, and would therefore not even make the attempt. Therefore, such occurrences need not happen at all, save in cases of the mentally deranged or crazies, who should be prevented from buying weapons if it is proven they are not mentally competent. Even then, an armed populace could neutralize such threats without them turning into a large scale massacre like Columbine and such.
So guns for entertainment are fine, just not for self defense? Seriously?
  In summary, in countries where guns are banned and where the punishment for posession or using one is harsh there is much less murder. I think that alone is worth the banning of guns. I mean, just comparing the general state of brazil or mexico or even rougher areas of the US to England for example is a real eye opener.
wonzan
Nope, whist law abiding citizens are stripped of their protection from wanton criminals and rapacious governments, law enforcement resources must be diverted away from prosecuting violent criminals and towards prosecuting otherwise law abiding citizens who merely want to be self reliant. Violent crime can increase as a result of this alone.  The roughest areas of the US tend to have stricter gun control laws, and of course this is true everywhere in the UK. Brazil is now ruled by a marxist who was sent to prison for attempting the violent overthrow of that nations government, and Mexico is a corrupt kleptocracy truly ruled by the drug cartels who kill Mexicans at will. Their people need to arm themselves now more-so that ever as their governments are either unable to protect them or will become their greatest enemy.
Log in to comment