Guns
Burncycle
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Evil:</b></span>
Leek:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->erm guns are evil if you arent smart enough to guess. making profit from something that will be used to kill somebody is also evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dillinja:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WRONG.....
selling guns is like throwing poison into the city waterworks.. i mean u dont have to drink the water....
SELLING GUNS OR ANYTHING THAT HELPS KILLING PEOPLE.... i cant even describe how deep below that is
ohh and one really important thing
GUNS DO NOT PROTECT PEOPLE - GUNS KILL PEOPLE
sorry to say that but that is the dummest thought on the whole world <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->well if ur too blind to see the truth i cant help u
u should join the nra
a baseball bat is for baseball
a car for driving
a knife for cutting
A GUN IS FOR KILLING NOTHING ELSE <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Good:</b></span>
Strabismo:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Guns are also for
- hunting
- target shooting
- collections
- law enforcment
It can cause crimes but it is not the main use of it. Guns don't kill people, people do. If someone kills somebody with a gun, will you punish the guy or the gun? The gun didn't fire by itself, it's the guy who pulled the trigger.
You aren't even reading what I write. I said that a police officer's service weapon can save lives and you think that I am talking about giving weapons to everybody.
If you are not able to see different opinions than yours without starting saying people are stupid because they don't think the same way than you, I have no idea what the hell you are doing on a discussion forum. You don't even read my arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leek:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->erm guns are evil if you arent smart enough to guess. making profit from something that will be used to kill somebody is also evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dillinja:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WRONG.....
selling guns is like throwing poison into the city waterworks.. i mean u dont have to drink the water....
SELLING GUNS OR ANYTHING THAT HELPS KILLING PEOPLE.... i cant even describe how deep below that is
ohh and one really important thing
GUNS DO NOT PROTECT PEOPLE - GUNS KILL PEOPLE
sorry to say that but that is the dummest thought on the whole world <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->well if ur too blind to see the truth i cant help u
u should join the nra
a baseball bat is for baseball
a car for driving
a knife for cutting
A GUN IS FOR KILLING NOTHING ELSE <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Good:</b></span>
Strabismo:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Guns are also for
- hunting
- target shooting
- collections
- law enforcment
It can cause crimes but it is not the main use of it. Guns don't kill people, people do. If someone kills somebody with a gun, will you punish the guy or the gun? The gun didn't fire by itself, it's the guy who pulled the trigger.
You aren't even reading what I write. I said that a police officer's service weapon can save lives and you think that I am talking about giving weapons to everybody.
If you are not able to see different opinions than yours without starting saying people are stupid because they don't think the same way than you, I have no idea what the hell you are doing on a discussion forum. You don't even read my arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
Guns are a tool.
I won't deny that guns were invented because they were a more efficient way of killing your enemy when compared to swords and bows/arrows. They were more efficient at destroying castle walls rather than losing lots of lives going over or digging under.
But guns today:
Some collect them, some hunt, some commit crimes with them.
Personally? I own firearms to target shoot. I like target shooting. I like the thinking involved when calculating ballistics to put that one round in the bullseye in one shot. I like the dicipline it takes to hold the rifle steady and true when aiming. The breathing you must learn, and the trigger control. Taking care of the weapon and cleaning/maintaining it to perfect tolerences. A runner sheds microseconds off his time by wearing aerodynamic shoes- I shead minutes off my aim by taking the time to bed the rifle properly.
I think target shooting is a legitimate hobby. Some people paint, some play baseball, I target shoot.
The only thing I hunt is paper. Sometimes something more fun (bottles of water, cinderblocks, whatever).
I don't carry a gun for defense, as I probably will never need it and it will get me into trouble more often than it helps.
Saying that guns themselves are evil is incorrect. There has to be an "evil" person behind that tool to do evil things with it.
But.... Guns do exist, and i personally don't think they're any more dangerous than anything else. A baseball bat can split your skull open, a knife can slice your stomach open, a bullet can put a whole right through your body. I think i'm more scared of knives than i am of guns, at least you can dodge a gun (close up) easier than a knife (smack the arm holding it to left or right. With a knife they'd just slash back).
i also think there's some fun to be had with guns. I've never fired a real gun (i think in the UK the only gun capable of firing allowed outside of a gun club is a shotgun), but i've had a few air rifles and the like, and i enjoy just setting up some targets and knocking 'em down. Can't do that with a knife. I don't agree with hunting, but a bit of target shooting is fine in my books.
if everybody (apart from police and army) handed in their guns to be destroyed, Gun crime would be solved.
easy
There is also a fact: murder and violence existed before guns. It's the society that makes the difference, not guns. But I don't believe in a society where everybody could buy a gun even kids and go everywhere he wants with it. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. Like owning a car. A gun is a destructive power and a lot of responsibilities goes with it, like a car. If you are not safe with your car, you will loose the privilege to drive a car. It should be the same thing with a gun.
I understand people who are scared by guns but I have a lot of difficulty to understand some of them that are trying to attack honest gun owners who makes a safe use of their weapons and doesn't harm anybody.
Things cannot be bad, people are bad.
Understand, I'm not saying we should make it readily available, nor should we allow everyone to purchase them. Either way, it's going to take a National or State Convention to change our gun rights. It takes at least three-fourths of the state.
Don't blame the invention for what people do with it.
if everybody (apart from police and army) handed in their guns to be destroyed, Gun crime would be solved.
easy <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I remember correctly, when they took away all of UK's guns the crime rate hit an all time high.
If you think you can just take away guns your wrong. Do you actually think criminals register their guns? When the UK took away everyone's guns, they took away everyone's main way of defending themselves. Basically the only people who had guns were the criminals, and no one else.
Eventually time does take its toll, but now-a-days anyone can build a gun. Even airsoft guns could be lethal.
You can kill someone by throwing rocks right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The fastest way to get yourself shot is to own a gun."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's so true. Think about this.
I'm not blaming guns, but the people who don't know how to use them. Unfortunately, there are so many of these people, so I don't believe guns should be used.
I must admit that the imposition of a safety formation and exam, a minimum age requirement and a research on the person to see if he is a criminal to be able to purchase a gun is a good idea. The rules about entreposing a weapon unloaded and in a safe place is also a good thing. But a lot of weapons are prohibited by name because they look dangerous but in reality, they aren't more dangerous than a normal hunting rifle. There is also a limit of 5 rounds per magazine for rifles and 10 rounds for pistols. For that, magazines that has a higher capacity must be blocked to reduce it's capacity. But it takes just one bullet for a criminal to kill someone and it is very easy to unlock rapidly a blocked magazine. They are even trying to prohibit the .22 caliber! They say that it is because some .22 guns can be too easily concealable. That just means that this law is driven by incompetent people or that this law is made to reassure the people who are scared by guns but without real effects.
There is also a obligation to register your weapon when you buy one. This obligation have been badly recieved by gun owners because it is prooven to be useless against crime, it costs a lot of money and it is a long and sometimes complicated procedure.
You NEVER hear about the responsible gun owners; of which I'm sure outnumber those who commit crimes.
Guns save a lot of lives when used in self defence. Concealed Carry laws also reduced crime in every state that implemented it. Guns hardly ever result in accidental death or injury.
Besides that, most criminals don't get their guns directly from the stores. They either steal them, use straw purchases or buy them on the street.
Guns are a tool, and just like anything else they can be abused.
I hunt.
I target shoot.
I am not a criminal, nor have I ever thought of committing a crime with a gun.
I have what some people might consider an arsonal.
I also collect knives, swords, and information about military hardware.
Needless to say, I do not consider guns to be inherently evil. I do agree that some people should never have access to anything that could be used as a weapon...much less a gun. I disagree that restricting public access, or registering weapons would have a positive effect on crime. If anything it simply leaves the lawful majority defenseless against the armed criminals...who <b>will</b> be armed with illegal weapons because they are <b>criminals</b> and do <b>not</b> care about the weapons restrictions.
In the US now, the possibility of any random person having a concealed weapon is a deterrent. It is another form of cold war. The cold war between the average joe and the not-so-hardcore theives and murderers that would fall out of the woodwork if there was no risk.
People say that the police are supposed to pick up the slack. That's absurd. The police forces would never be capable of having enough coverage to make a robbery as risky to the robber as it is now. Even if it was possible the taxes would have to jump and our society would resemble a police state with lockdowns after 10:00 and such.
I believe the best way to make the situation better is to advocate more weapons safety programs for the public. This is because an unreasonably large portion of gun mishaps are just that....mishaps. There should be a mandatory course at some point in school that describes the basic types of firearms the public has access to (pistols, rifles, shotguns), and how to properly handle them. This could even be coupled with a history lesson on the tools of hunting, warfare, and the advance of human civilization.
Who knows. A kid might actually listen to what the teacher is teaching for once. This stuff is incredibly interesting.
A gun - what is it? Its a tool for launching pieces of metal at extremely high velocities. You can launch these pieces of metal at targets for fun, at animals for sport, or at people. The most obvious case of "anti-people" guns are handguns, assault rifles and sub-machine guns. You cannot compare these weapons to cars - unless people only keep cars to take to specialised "driving ranges" were all they do with them is run down cardboard cutout figures of humans.
Guns have their place in society - those that need them specifically for a task. And self defence doesnt cut it when its illegal to draw a firearm on someone. As such - police should have handguns and smgs, hunters/farmers should have rifles, general population shouldnt have anything more dangerous than a slingshot. If they wish to target shoot and the world will collapse without being about to fire of f100 rounds of a m249 SAW then they can go to firing ranges. If they wish to purchase a weapon, it cannot leave said firing range.
We have it exactly that way (or close enough) in Australia - and we dont have percentage wise even close to the American gun toll.
As for the British "jump" in crime when guns were outlawed - how sure are you of a direct correlation?
PE90 is a semi automatic version of SG550 (wich is an assault rifle) and it is an excellent target shooting weapon. It's caliber (5.56X45mm) is less powerful than a remington 7400 (semi automatic hunting rifle, just an example) that could use 30-06 rounds.
Target shooting also includes pistols.
And if we talk about SMGs, considering a semi automatic SMG, like the MP5SF, it is not more dangerous than a pistol (it is using the same caliber and less easily concealable).
We don't need a assault rifle, a SMG or a pistol to commit a murder. A simple rifle can kill someone.
That's my point of view
Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of death for young people, 10 to 24 years of age. For every child killed four are wounded.
In 1994, nearly 90% of homicide victims 15 to 19 are killed with a firearm.
Of violent deaths in schools, 77% are caused by firearms.
Approximately 50% of all homes in the United States contain a firearm, and over 50% of handguns in homes are loaded.
In 1996, more than 1,300 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms.
Now why would this be?
1) Firearms are simple to use: killing a person or yourself is reduced to pulling a trigger. Researchers have found out that even a small thing like making pills harder to get en masse prevented hundreds of suicides. Time before you can act = life
2) Firearms are easy to use on groups. Killing lots of people with a knife or a baseball bat takes lots of time and energy.
3) Guns are an offensive weapon: the one who shoots first, "wins". Thus, it will encourage people with the same weapon to start killing.
4) It is pretty hard to eliminate a threat without causing a mortal wound. If you shoot your adversary in a leg, you can bet he will be shooting back anyway
Sure, it is perfectly alright if people only use it for target practice or hunting, but with proper control you can limit the owners to this group. Anyway, I'm not an expert on guns <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
The statistics would still be the same, only the weapon would be different.
The statistics would still be the same, only the weapon would be different. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the statistics would drop. Why? Because guns make killing very easy. You just point and click. Other weapons (except maybe crossbows but they're illegal here as well) require you to exert physical effort or have some skill with the weapon itself. Guns make committing murder simple. And often, when people don't have such a powerful and potent weapon as a gun at their disposal, they have more time to sit back and think, or sober up and examine the situation. Guns allow people to act on wild impulses and moments of brief anger; people without guns have to go to quite a bit of effort to act on these thoughts and emotions, and generally they calm down in this period.
There is a place for guns in society. Police and security forces certainly should have them, as they do need to enforce the law. Some farmers need them, especially in Australia where you get some pretty nasty stuff in the bush (no, not kangaroos, I'm talking about wild pigs the size of trucks). Some sportsmen, who must obviously prove that they are very capable, responsable people with a genuine interest in guns for recreational use only, should be allowed guns. But the average person in society? No way. No way in hell.
A few years back an incident occured <a href='http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/' target='_blank'>at Port Arthur</a> here in Australia. A yong man named Martin Bryant killed 35 people with a semi-automatic weapon. After this terrible event, the Australian government moved to outlaw most guns in the country, with the exceptions being in those areas I have described above. Today you need to be one of those people: a policeman, a farmer, or a sportsman, to get guns, and even then you're restricted. Average people can get guns legally, but it's very hard. You have to establish a need, and "self-defense" isn't a need.
Now I know what people are thinking: "Crime must have skyrocketted!". Nope. I live in Brisbane, capital city of one of Australia's states and home to 1.5 million people. I've never seen a gun. I can't remember when I last heard about a gun-related murder, or any murder for that matter. I don't feel unsafe at home, or walking down inner-city streets at night. "Criminals must have heaps of guns now, because when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, right?" Again, no. Certainly criminals have aquired guns. But look to my previous point about crime in general. There's not many criminals and few of them get guns. It's too expensive and risky.
The situation in the United States is ridiculous. Guns are far too readily availible, and is it small wonder everyone has them in such conditions? Or that the gun murder rate is so high? Look at Australia. Look at the United Kingdom. We've both managed to deal without guns just fine. What makes the US so special? You always hear Americans say that their country is the finest in the world. Why can't it protect it's own citizens?
You NEVER hear about the responsible gun owners; of which I'm sure outnumber those who commit crimes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, okay.. good job for not killing anybody.
This isn't about the responsible gun owners. You don't hear stories on the Muslims which DON'T decide to strap a bomb to their chest and kill hundreds of people.
The issue is if removing guns will solve the problem. Those of you who are for guns are saying it wouldn't make things better. I say to you guys, would it hurt to try? Do we really have to say "Removing guns won't help. So sorry. All you people will have to die by guns so I can hunt and feel safe"? Can we TRY a little harder than this?
I'm fully aware that you can kill without a gun, so please don't try to explain this concept to me. The point is that sometimes you are ready to kill someone in a window of about a few seconds. The less available a lethal weapon is to you in that window of time, the better. By the time you get a knife out and pull it out on someone, you might actually come to your senses about what you are about to do, whereas as Ryo so eliquently put it, you can't "point and click" them dead.
United States's % of household with guns is 39%
Canada's homicide rate with guns (per 100 000) is 0.76
USA's homicide rate with guns (per 100 000) is 3.72
Canada's total homicide rate (per 100 000): 2.16
USA's total homicide rate (per 100 000): 5.70
Canada's suicide rate (per 100 000): 13.19
USA's suicide rate (per 100 000): 12.06
If you compare Canada to USA, you can see that guns is not the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the average person in society? No way. No way in hell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why do you say that? Average people are NOT your problem. The criminals are, and while the measures you described may reduce the amount of crime committed with firearms, it also makes it very hard for law abiding citizens to own a firearm. Whether or not they SHOULD have one is not your decision. The UK and australia has decided that the tradeoff of reducing crime whilst heavily retarding the ability for law abiding citizens to own a firearm is worth the tradeoff. While I respect that, I'm glad i'm allowed to own one.
On the other hand, I'd be willing to compromise. Keeping my gun at a range as marine suggested is fine with me.
Car accident makes more deaths than guns. Should we remove cars?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the time you get a knife out and pull it out on someone, you might actually come to your senses about what you are about to do, whereas as Ryo so eliquently put it, you can't "point and click" them dead<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to go get a gun, load it, find the person you want to kill, aim it then shoot. This is considering nobody carries a gun everywhere he goes. I really don't think everybody having a gun on himself everytimes is a good idea. If it's locked and unloaded in your home, there is no danger.
If both, are you trying to pass the "guns aren't a problem, cause they only kill x amount of people cause that's a whole lot less than this which kills y amount of people" argument? Please.
Deaths are deaths. Lets weigh the pros and cons to guns.
Pros
You can hunt with a little more variation than crossbow
You can "feel" safe in your home
Keeps NRA happy
[strikethrough] If you want to kill someone, you could. [/strikethrough]
Cons
Makes burglary a snap.
Makes 2nd degree murder a snap.
Makes drive-by shootings a snap.
Makes raping a snap.
Is there anything which justifies the death of more people? I mean really.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Car accident makes more deaths than guns. Should we remove cars?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Should we pretend these deaths do not happen, because car accidents make more deaths than guns?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have to go get a gun, load it, find the person you want to kill, aim it then shoot. This is considering nobody carries a gun everywhere he goes. I really don't think everybody having a gun on himself everytimes is a good idea. If it's locked and unloaded in your home, there is no danger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you're assuming every gun user keeps theirs locked and unloaded in their home. This is not a prerequisite for being a gun owner, you realize. It isn't hard for me to imagine someone a guy keeping a unlocked fully-loaded pistol in his glove compartment handy for road rage incidents.
If both, are you trying to pass the "guns aren't a problem, cause they only kill x amount of people cause that's a whole lot less than this which kills y amount of people" argument? Please.
Deaths are deaths. Lets weigh the pros and cons to guns.
Pros
You can hunt with a little more variation than crossbow
You can "feel" safe in your home
Keeps NRA happy
[strikethrough] If you want to kill someone, you could. [/strikethrough]
Cons
Makes burglary a snap.
Makes 2nd degree murder a snap.
Makes drive-by shootings a snap.
Makes raping a snap.
Is there anything which justifies the death of more people? I mean really. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just look at statistics and you will see that for almost the same percentage of household with guns for Canada and USA, (USA = 1.25 * Canada), homicides with guns rate in USA is 5 times Canada's homicide rate. So that means that the number of guns is not the problem. The problem is something else.
You forgot target shooting at your "pros" list and just try to hunt duck and small games with a crossbow <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Knives are used in rape twice as often as handguns. Of course, weapons are only used in about 1/5 of the cases anyways. The usual "weapon" of choice is brute strength.
If you want to look at a cause for it, around 3/4 of the assailants are under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they commit the act.
Sure the US is third place in terms of murder rate, but we're about 10th or 12th in terms of violent crime in general or burglary.
Knives are used in rape twice as often as handguns. Of course, weapons are only used in about 1/5 of the cases anyways. The usual "weapon" of choice is brute strength.
If you want to look at a cause for it, around 3/4 of the assailants are under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they commit the act.
Sure the US is third place in terms of murder rate, but we're about 10th or 12th in terms of violent crime in general or burglary. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It almost sounds like you'd rather die then be robbed <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You all seem to have come to the conclusion that its not the actual guns that are the problem. So what is? Tell me please - I'd love to hear it. Micheal Moore (im not a fanboi of his) came to the conclusion that American's are paranoid. I really dont know. But it seems to be a deep and pervasive problem with your society that you will neither identify or fix.
And banning guns is a hell of a lot easier then shaping public mentality. The problem may well not be the guns themselves, but take away the guns and the problem will take care of itself.
Many things depend on where you are from. If one lives in a town where owning firearms is common as owning computers, then of course it will seem normal and not strange. But if one came from a family that hates guns, then, most likely, guns will not be a part of life. Anyways, guns are tools designed to kill and these days there is no need for killing. There is no more point to hunting then it being a tradition (discluding primitive humans); people need to realize that guns are killing machines. I agree with hawkeye, there is no need for owning guns and it would be better for the rest of mankind if guns were destroyed, completely. I also agree with others defending the right to own firearms, because as for myself, instinctively, I feel that owning a gun would make me feel in touch with my past, primitive mind, and need for feeling powerful. Now you can see that I am kind of in between both sides of the scale.
It can also be said that without guns we wouldn't be this technologicaly advanced. I think the need to be more technological for whatever positive reason, whether it be making clothes at a faster rate or designing a more efficient car, will likely produce a negative prospect to the concept. As for guns, gunpowder was invented, perhaps more or less for a good reason, but in the end it gave way to the design of a gunpowder propelled bullet and rifle. Death and weapons are at times prerequisites to more better or terrifying things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Woah slow down there Wyatt Earp. Criminals are a problem that the police look after. Citizens don't stop criminals.
In terms of self-defense, there is little reason to own a gun. Chances are you're far more likely to kill a family member than an intruder in your house. On that note, burglars arn't bent on slaughter. They try to sneak in and get out without being seen. They don't carry guns. You walking downstairs and shoutng "hey you!" will generally cause an intruder to run away.
Any illusion of added protection is just that: an illusion. Having a gun won't protect you against a real attacker. They'll be coming when you least expect it, striking whilst you sleep, knocking you unconcious on drugging you. No time to draw your sidearm and shoot.
Michael Moore's conclusion that Americans are paranoid probably does hold a lot of truth. In terms of gun laws, what works in Australia, the UK and Canada may not work in the US. However, what the US currently has does not work. The thousands of gun deaths each year and rampant crime despite almost total gun ownership is stark proof of that. Argueing that an armed populace prevents crime is rather difficult given the very high crime rates in the US.
Effective police forces are the answer to crime, coupled with education and elimination of poverty areas.