Constitutional Laws?

I'd keep it in my home, that's the only thing I need to think about. And that's the only reason why I don't have any problems with the law. As I said before, anyone else who would've used his gun for shooting random people, robbery etc. would have illegally obtained it anyway even if government did ban firearms.

Originally Posted by Japut3h

I'd keep it in my home, that's the only thing I need to think about. And that's the only reason why I don't have any problems with the law. As I said before, anyone else who would've used his gun for shooting random people, robbery etc. would have illegally obtained it anyway even if government did ban firearms.

Not always. Same goes for all sorts of things, why have security systems, and locks and other such devices? If they want to break in they can. It deters people that would do it if you didn't have the extra protection. Same goes for guns, some wouldn't try and get one illegally, but if they already have it....

It's true. You can actually get a device that plays an amplified sound of a shotgun cocking. It's supposed to work like nuts for detering possible burglars.

Originally Posted by Gilles

By this logic it sounds like you think that if everyone owned a gun, then our world would be a safer place?

I should think so. Who are you more afraid of, the police, or an angry mob?

Originally Posted by Gilles

"As long as they keep them in their homes" relies on people using their property (the gun) properly, and in my experience that can be a problem.

We can't base all our decisions on irresponsible or disabled people.

Originally Posted by Gilles

more guns = more shooting, less guns = less shooting

More shooting does not always mean more death or injuries. Tying into what brad said, a warning shot is a damn good thing, eh?
Or you can think of it like this:
You with a gun vs. someone with a gun.
You with two guns vs. someone with a gun.
You with three guns vs. someone with a gun. (Assuming your third arm.)
You with a gun vs. a mob with guns.
You with two guns vs. a mob with guns.
You with three guns vs. a mob with guns.

Does the amount of guns you have matter when it's you against an army?

Originally Posted by Gilles

Not always. Same goes for all sorts of things, why have security systems, and locks and other such devices? If they want to break in they can. It deters people that would do it if you didn't have the extra protection. Same goes for guns, some wouldn't try and get one illegally, but if they already have it....

There is a big difference here.
Locks (and things of such manner) keep the world away from you.
Laws keep the world away from the world.

Outlawing something does not make it impossible to get, but putting a lock on something, does. (Depending on lock quality and function.)

Originally Posted by Hakeem

I should think so. Who are you more afraid of, the police, or an angry mob?

A mob? I don't see the relevancy.

We can't base all our decisions on irresponsible or disabled people.

We also can't base our decisions on one person or an idealism.

More shooting does not always mean more death or injuries. Tying into what brad said, a warning shot is a damn good thing, eh?
Or you can think of it like this:
You with a gun vs. someone with a gun.
You with two guns vs. someone with a gun.
You with three guns vs. someone with a gun. (Assuming your third arm.)
You with a gun vs. a mob with guns.
You with two guns vs. a mob with guns.
You with three guns vs. a mob with guns.

Does the amount of guns you have matter when it's you against an army?

I think you totally misunderstood me, I meant that if there are more guns around, the odds of them being used goes up, it's just logic. Not sure where you got this whole you and an army thing.

There is a big difference here.
Locks (and things of such manner) keep the world away from you.
Laws keep the world away from the world.

Outlawing something does not make it impossible to get, but putting a lock on something, does. (Depending on lock quality and function.)

Putting a lock on something does not make it impossible to get, not in the least. As well, if guns are only licensed (remember, I'm not for a ban on guns) it forces people to put effort into obtaining them illegally. Just because we can't stop criminals from obtaining something, it should be legalized?

Originally Posted by Hakeem

Tell hell it isn't. Guns are the most abundant and deadly weapon. Taking away my right to a gun is taking away my greatest right to protect myself. If you take away my right to guns, I am to assume my right to more advanced weapons is already gone, and what's left is weapons of less advancement than firearms. I cannot reasonably protect myself with any lesser weapon against people who have firearms. Taking away my right to keep and bear arms inevitably makes me a target for domination. Governments, slave owners, invaders, you name it, there are threats to me and taking away my right to a gun revokes my right to protect myself form those malicious forces.


Hell, I need guns to protect myself from wild animals.

Note that many things written in the constitution have be rewritten when they didn't need to be. For example:

• All the equality laws.

Thats a pretty stupid statement. If you take away "all" the guns you wouldn't NEED to protect yourself from people with guns. because they would have none. Besides i bet more people have fallen victim to agression with guns then self defense. and it makes you think your really paranoid and should see a psychiatrist.

On top of that (even i know as a non-american) that the constitutional-laws of america CANNOT be changed. the governement can make amendments, but they cannot actually change the law

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

Thats a pretty stupid statement. If you take away "all" the guns you wouldn't NEED to protect yourself from people with guns. because they would have none. Besides i bet more people have fallen victim to agression with guns then self defense. and it makes you think your really paranoid and should see a psychiatrist.

I thought this is already clear.

The odds of all guns in the world disappearing or being taken away are equal to the odds of a penguin jumping out of your toilet. It will never happen. What we are discussing here is what if someone passed a law that would forbid guns? They would still be around, and would be a melody to all the criminals out there.

If someone is already planning to break a law, let's say, rob a bank, he will most probably get a smuggled gun and break the law a bit more, instead of doing it with a knife. Cocaine is illegal, yet people still manage obtain it. Guns would probably be obtainable too. If nothing, some guy would assemble them and ship them over border.

Since guns are now illegal, there is no way to track the robber down even if he shoots up half of the place, because, being that the law suggests that no one owns a gun, the unique code that helps determine the owner would be useless.

Man fucked it up the moment he invented a firearm. Things are shitty, and would be much better if they never existed.

But being that they are here, and will always be available to psychopaths and criminals, it's much smarter to allow a stable and a cautious man to carry one too.

If you aren't cautious with a gun, you will probably mess up yourself and/or the ones who were dumb enough to hang around you, which is your problem. If you aren't stable, you don't need a gun to mess someone up anyway. You'll do it sooner or later with a brick, or a machete.

The fact that you have a gun lying under your cussion makes it alot easier to use it then when you have to get a gun, it worked perfectly in holland.

Originally Posted by Gilles

A mob? I don't see the relevancy.

If everyone had a gun, then it would be as if the world is a mob ready to shoot you if you shoot someone, instead of only the police being ready to shoot you if you shoot someone.

Originally Posted by Gilles

We also can't base our decisions on one person or an idealism.

Then we agree. :D

Originally Posted by Gilles

I think you totally misunderstood me, I meant that if there are more guns around, the odds of them being used goes up, it's just logic. Not sure where you got this whole you and an army thing.

I addressed the point you were trying to make in the first line. The rest was an alternate to your point. If there is an army ready to shoot you if you shoot your gun, you sure aren't very likely to use your gun now are you?

Originally Posted by Gilles

Putting a lock on something does not make it impossible to get, not in the least.

But it's way more effective than anything trying to keep the world from itself.

Originally Posted by Gilles

As well, if guns are only licensed (remember, I'm not for a ban on guns) it forces people to put effort into obtaining them illegally.

It also impedes my right to have a gun with which to protect myself.

Originally Posted by Gilles

Just because we can't stop criminals from obtaining something, it should be legalized?

Whoa, slow down there. You're talking to an anarchist.

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

Thats a pretty stupid statement. If you take away "all" the guns you wouldn't NEED to protect yourself from people with guns. because they would have none.

Other people with guns are not the only thing you need protection from. Granted, it is something that you really might want protection from.

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

Besides i bet more people have fallen victim to agression with guns then self defense.

Doesn't change the fact that they can still be used for defensive purposes.

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

and it makes you think your really paranoid and should see a psychiatrist.

Erm, no it doesn't? :s

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

On top of that (even i know as a non-american) that the constitutional-laws of america CANNOT be changed. the governement can make amendments, but they cannot actually change the law

Sure they can. All it takes is a bunch of people to not care about it.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

If everyone had a gun, then it would be as if the world is a mob ready to shoot you if you shoot someone, instead of only the police being ready to shoot you if you shoot someone.

I also don't believe in capital punishment.

Then we agree. :D

Hurray!

I addressed the point you were trying to make in the first line. The rest was an alternate to your point. If there is an army ready to shoot you if you shoot your gun, you sure aren't very likely to use your gun now are you?

To quote a great man, "I also don't believe in capital punishment."

But it's way more effective than anything trying to keep the world from itself.

Huh? It keeps your things safe mostly. Nothing to do with the world from itself.

It also impedes my right to have a gun with which to protect myself.

Ahh, rights. Your right to a gun is a threat to me right to life imo.

Whoa, slow down there. You're talking to an anarchist.

Oh jeez, no wonder you want guns. :P

Originally Posted by Gilles

I also don't believe in capital punishment.

It depends on the person. This isn't punishment, in any case, this is a thread from everyone to anyone who would commit a crime.

Originally Posted by Gilles

Huh? It keeps your things safe mostly. Nothing to do with the world from itself.

I was referring to your earlier comparison of locks and laws.

Originally Posted by Gilles

Ahh, rights. Your right to a gun is a threat to me right to life imo.

There are many thing that are a threat to your life. Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, things. We don't outlaw them because, one, it becomes impossible, and two, they aren't actively trying to kill you. I'm not in the least impeding your right to life, unless I actively try to kill you. Even if I am, it's perfectly legal for you to own one to protect yourself against me.

Originally Posted by Gilles

Oh jeez, no wonder you want guns. :P

I don't just want guns. I need guns. How do you expect me to protect myself from wild animals? Or to hunt? Guns are tools to aid us, not devices for killing you.

Also it evens the playing field in the anarchy.

Perfect examples of more guns != more safety:
School shootings.
Kid steals gun from parents because he went nuts.
Goes and shoots people at school and delivers some message he thinks to be epic because he went nuts.
Proceeds to shoot himself after delivering said message and instilling fear because he went nuts.

Now, this doesn't apply to only school shootings, look at the last part.
"Because he went nuts."
There are lots of psychopaths out there who will shoot even with the knowledge that they will be shot.
While some people having a gun may protect him from creating a massacre, the psycho having an easily (relatively) obtainable lethal weapon sure as hell doesn't help the situation.
Oh, also people tend to have anger issues. That ties into the psychotic thing. The guns don't help the anger issues, only point people to an easier solution.
--donut3.5--

If other students on campus have guns, then the moment you fire a shot at someone, you'll bet you're gonna get shot. You know, before you have time to shoot more people.

Only if the students remain in a constant state of paranoia and always have their guns cocked and ready. Unless the other students can somehow read the brain waves of the surprise shooter student, they're going to be much less prepared than the one who knows exactly when he or she is going to act.
All guns would do is create more unnatural societal tension. Social tension tends to lead to less progress, and progress is sort of the point of humanity.
--donut3.5--

Hands are a weapon. Pencils are weapons. Just about anything can be used as a weapon. If I wanted to up and kill you, the element of surprise is certainly on my side. Only trouble is, any weapon I use can be matched by those around me. That's why they use guns. Nobody else has them so they have a hell of an upper hand.

If everybody had a gun, then why would there be societal tension? They can fight back with equal power to what an attacker has. Kinda like with pencils. Maybe that fact that they can fight back so easily removes the worry? Maybe it's just because people don't actively kill each other all the time.