Man kills burglars during 9/11 call

[Bulkboy]

So if an armed criminal enters their house, they'd be safer doing nothing, rather than firing a gun?

If the criminal is armed, and he gets startled, he's going to shoot regardless (see Sean Taylor). It's absolutely absurd, and just stupid, to think someone
would be LESS safe with a gun if a criminal broke in. You don't need military training, you just need to shoot and point. Truthfully, if a criminal broke into your house, and you had a gun, would you reach for it, or would you think "oh noes, I better just stay here and wait this one out."

theyde be safter calling the police. trying to confront an armed criminal whos intentions were originally to rob the house, is hazardous, and a normal citizen without any training whatsoever, might jepordize other lives than his own, im thinking kids in the house and so on. and its not as easy as u claim, just pointing and shooting. its real life, not a fucking computer game. lots of things can go wrong. remember, its a totally surprising situation, u may have been woken up in the middle of the night, ur tired, ur eyes are blurry. it may be dark, and with kids in the house, confronting an armed criminal may not be as easy as u claim. also, lets not forget that ur talking about killing another human being here, alot of people would get problems with that later on. i just sincerely believe that its the job of the police to take care of criminals.

They will get armed regardless, and that is a fact. It takes a sick sick fuck to do something like this, and it's not something anyone sane could do at the drop of a hat.


Besides, how do you possibly support it? Nobody is saying we should GIVE everyone a gun, but if a sick fuck snaps, and he wants a gun, he's going to get it. If he can't get it legally, he will get it illegally, very easily. Im not opposed to background checks and waiting periods, but its simply futile to think any gun control would work.

that is so cheap argumentation imo. the notion that: "well criminals will get guns no matter what, so lets arm ourselves and the whole country so we can be safe!!" its so ridicolous, dont u see it? ur NOT gonna be any safer by having guns floating around every fucking street corner, im just amazed that u do not see it. here in my country, even criminals doesent have much guns, rarely does a murder with firearms ever happends. and the police takes away guns from criminals too. one thing does not exclude the other, one can work against weapon availability across the whole line.

Quit wanting to be babied so much. There's no reason why law abiding citizens should be punished because criminals break the law. Why am I not surprised that you completely ignored data showing that gun control increases crime, and the example of a school shooting being STOPPED because people have guns. How about VA Tech/Columbine? If those places had guns, the shooters probably would have thought twice about doing it in the first place, but even if they did, they'd have gotten to kill far far less people.

You're also completely ignoring the increased finance that gangs/drug dealers would get if guns were made illegal, because they would still have guns and they'd be the one selling it. This would increase crime.

its not about punishing, its about doing whats right for the general population. individual freedom is one thing, but not at the expense of the wholse society. why shouldnt everyone be allowed having a nuke in their back yarden then?:wutyousay: i guess that at such a scale even u hard core ron paul fans would tone down ur individual freedom talk

and arguing that more guns at schools and universities would stop school massacres, christ, its a never ending cycle u are preaching here man. dont u see it? to be safer ur arguing for arming every single citizen. now what about hospitals? let arm ourselves there too. massacres MAY occur there. how about kinder gardens? lets arm the employes there too huh?

dont u see it? its a never ending cycle, and ultimately it solves nothing, it just serves to further make the society more unstable and unsafer. u say lets arm students so school shootings doesent occur. well, over here in europe school massacres rarely does happend, so why arm the students? the solution is not more guns, look deeper into it.



about ur statistics about mexico having higher murder rates, cmon. mexico is pretty damn horrible to compare urself with right? most kidnappings in the world, enormeous poverty and social problems, obviously there are many reasons why mexico is higher on that ranking. look across the border to canada, or look across the pond to western europe. why not compare with ur peers? isnt that more relevant for an industrialized country such as the US?

 

[Tech]

guns are dangerous.

we keep our shotgun locked in a steel safe, just incase it comes alive and tries to murder us during the night.

 

[Ironslave]

theyde be safter calling the police. trying to confront an armed criminal whos intentions were originally to rob the house, is hazardous, and a normal citizen without any training whatsoever, might jepordize other lives than his own, im thinking kids in the house and so on. and its not as easy as u claim, just pointing and shooting. its real life, not a fucking computer game. lots of things can go wrong. remember, its a totally surprising situation, u may have been woken up in the middle of the night, ur tired, ur eyes are blurry. it may be dark, and with kids in the house, confronting an armed criminal may not be as easy as u claim. also, lets not forget that ur talking about killing another human being here, alot of people would get problems with that later on. i just sincerely believe that its the job of the police to take care of criminals.

That's the biggest load of bullshit you've probably ever said, and you know it. So instead of possibly defending yourself, they'd be safer doing absolutely fuck all, and calling the police and waiting the 20 minutes+ for them to show up ??

Even you, if you thought about it, would think this is pure nonsense. Quit going on a speel about "oh it's dark, surprising, kids are there, blah blah blah". Whatever nit picking odd situation you may list, there is absolutely, no doubt whatsoever that you would be safer with a gun in your house if an armed robber broke in, not less. That's absolute nonsense and even the biggest gun control advocate would agree.

that is so cheap argumentation imo. the notion that: "well criminals will get guns no matter what, so lets arm ourselves and the whole country so we can be safe!!" its so ridicolous, dont u see it? ur NOT gonna be any safer by having guns floating around every fucking street corner, im just amazed that u do not see it. here in my country, even criminals doesent have much guns, rarely does a murder with firearms ever happends. and the police takes away guns from criminals too. one thing does not exclude the other, one can work against weapon availability across the whole line.

The whole country will be safe? You're an idiot, the whole country will never be safe, and certainly not with gun control laws. Why don't criminals have guns in your country? Is it because of gun control laws? Define criminals, how do they take away their guns? Do they knock on the doors of a list of all known criminals and say "umm... can we have your guns?" Do criminals just give it up voluntarily?

Your contry has the highest gun ownership rates in western europe, yet the lowest murders. Choke on that.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

its not about punishing, its about doing whats right for the general population. individual freedom is one thing, but not at the expense of the wholse society. why shouldnt everyone be allowed having a nuke in their back yarden then?:wutyousay: i guess that at such a scale even u hard core ron paul fans would tone down ur individual freedom talk

Yes, lets give everybody a nuclear weapon, they may suddenly snap and use it . Quit using strawman arguments, it makes you look bad and is impossible to take you seriously. You don't cite any statistics whatsoever, and you completely ignore statistics and logic, and instead, reduce to your empty rhetoric "guns are bans, if we banned them people would be safe." It's absolutely impossible to debate when you keep ignoring anything that doesn't support your simplistic views.

I will not tone down freedom talk, as one of the purposes of the government is to protect freedom (well, it used to be and should be). Learn to take care of yourself.

and arguing that more guns at schools and universities would stop school massacres, christ, its a never ending cycle u are preaching here man. dont u see it? to be safer ur arguing for arming every single citizen. now what about hospitals? let arm ourselves there too. massacres MAY occur there. how about kinder gardens? lets arm the employes there too huh?

No I'm not you fucktard. Look at America now, where guns are legal, does every citizen carry around a gun? Fuck no. How many do, like what, 5%? So quit using your bullshit extreme examples of "every person" walking around with a gun, it won't happen. When did I ever once say, that lets GIVE them a gun?? The difference is, it's their right to have one.

Notice, you also once again, selectively ignored examples of a school shooting being stopped at 2 murders, instead of 20+, because people had guns. Fuck, stop ignoring points, it's impossible to debate when you do this.

So what would you rather in this situation? Going back to the original house break in example, would you feel safer doing absolutely nothing, because

i just sincerely believe that its the job of the police to take care of criminals.

? Or, would you feel safer knowing you could defend yourself, and your peers?

dont u see it? its a never ending cycle, and ultimately it solves nothing, it just serves to further make the society more unstable and unsafer. u say lets arm students so school shootings doesent occur. well, over here in europe school massacres rarely does happend, so why arm the students? the solution is not more guns, look deeper into it.

Once again, you ignore every statistic I cite, and resort to simplistic views on how great it would be to have a society without guns (which is impossible) so this is pointless. More murders of ANY nature happen in America.

 

[Ironslave]

Now, I'm going to go through the Harvard review, and list statistics, points, and facts for you to put in your pipe (that you feel the government should take away because pipe's are dangerous for your health, yes I know I am reaching, but quit wanting such a nanny state) and smoke on.

 

[Ironslave]

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

For example,
Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002.9

gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms
ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data
from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is,
“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”
11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources
are summarized as follows by the leading text:
[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between
gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1)
time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties
within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S.
states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7)
population subgroups . . . .12


A second misconception about the relationship between firearms
and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accurate
since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the
gun controls were introduced.13 For instance, virtually the only
English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns.
During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or
Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless
had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are
comparatively very high.14

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in
2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant
studies.


The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of
strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions [nineteenth
and early twentieth century] England had little violent
crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun
controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even
the increase in armed violence.17
Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become
one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions
of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding
them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade
after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a
hundredfold.18




..... and I'm done with this, read the paper and stop ignoring points for your simplistic Utopian views you think society should have.





(1.) See, e.g., JOHN GODWIN, MURDER USA: THE WAYS WE KILL EACH OTHER 281
(1978) (“Areas with the highest proportion of gun owners also boast the highest
homicide ratios; those with the fewest gun owners have the lowest.”); N. PETE
SHIELDS, GUNS DON’T DIE, PEOPLE DO 64 (1981) (quoting and endorsing an English
academic’s remark: “We cannot help but believe that America ought to share the
basic premise of our gun legislation—that the availability of firearms breeds violence.”);
Janice Somerville, Gun Control as Immunization, AM. MED. NEWS, Jan. 3,
1994, at 9 (quoting public health activist Katherine Christoffel, M.D.: “Guns are a
virus that must be eradicated . . . . Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you
get rid of the deaths.”); Deane Calhoun, From Controversy to Prevention: Building Effective
Firearm Policies, INJ. PROTECTION NETWORK NEWSL., Winter 1989–90, at 17
(“[G]uns are not just an inanimate object [sic], but in fact are a social ill.”); see also
WENDY CUKIER & VICTOR W. SIDEL, THE GLOBAL GUN EPIDEMIC: FROM SATURDAY
NIGHT SPECIALS TO AK‐47S (2006); Susan Baker, Without Guns, Do People Kill People?
75 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 587 (1985); Paul Cotton, Gun‐Associated Violence Increasingly
Viewed as Public Health Challenge, 267 J. AM. MED. ASS’N 1171 (1992); Diane Schetky,
Children and Handguns: A Public Health Concern, 139 AM. J. DIS. CHILD. 229, 230 (1985);
Lois A. Fingerhut & Joel C. Kleinman, International and Interstate Comparisons of
Homicides Among Young Males, 263 J. AM. MED. ASS’N 3292, 3295 (1990).

 

[Braaq]

I am always armed... two cannons hanging from my shoulders all day




I believe in the right to bear arms and do agree with the assessment that banning guns will create a bigger problem than allowing citizens to bear arms. However, I am with Bulkboy that killing people for robbery is over the top and Joe Horn should be tried for manslaughter.. not murder, but manslaughter none the less. The only time someone should have the right to use a gun is if their life is in danger, not for the theft of personal items. Just my opinion though...
Both sides of the argument I have read are argued very well, but I think there is something to take from both sides.

 

[Ironslave]

I believe in the right to bear arms and do agree with the assessment that banning guns will create a bigger problem than allowing citizens to bear arms. However, I am with Bulkboy that killing people for robbery is over the top and Joe Horn should be tried for manslaughter.. not murder, but manslaughter none the less. The only time someone should have the right to use a gun is if their life is in danger, not for the theft of personal items. Just my opinion though... .

Fair enough, it certainly was a brash action. But it was the kind of action that if he was charged, I'm sure the people who arrest him would hand cuff him, and then give him a pat on the back.

 

[Bulkboy]

That's the biggest load of bullshit you've probably ever said, and you know it. So instead of possibly defending yourself, they'd be safer doing absolutely fuck all, and calling the police and waiting the 20 minutes+ for them to show up ??

Even you, if you thought about it, would think this is pure nonsense. Quit going on a speel about "oh it's dark, surprising, kids are there, blah blah blah". Whatever nit picking odd situation you may list, there is absolutely, no doubt whatsoever that you would be safer with a gun in your house if an armed robber broke in, not less. That's absolute nonsense and even the biggest gun control advocate would agree

With a gun, i would be able to confront the criminal true, in that confrontation alot of scenarios could happend:

A)I would kill the criminal, no harm to me or my family, i may get problems later on in life, because the criminal infact maybe never had the intentions of killing me. is it really worth killing someone over material property?

B) I end up getting injured or killed myself in the confrontation either because of inability to handle the gun or because the armed criminal returns fire.

C) I end up wounding or killing family members in the house.

and even if u exclude these rational points of possible turnouts in such a situation and reduce it to only a political argument, fine, because the notion is still that society does not benefit from having an armed population. most untrained, ill prepared individuals will not be able to respond properly in such a situation period.

found this:

"But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48)"

The whole country will be safe? You're an idiot, the whole country will never be safe, and certainly not with gun control laws. Why don't criminals have guns in your country? Is it because of gun control laws? Define criminals, how do they take away their guns? Do they knock on the doors of a list of all known criminals and say "umm... can we have your guns?" Do criminals just give it up voluntarily?

Your contry has the highest gun ownership rates in western europe, yet the lowest murders. Choke on that.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

What part of irony did u not understand? i was simply joking about the fact that u seem to think that arming students at schools will provide greater safety. im pleased to see that u resort to calling me an idiot though. it really gives u that edge IS.

First off all, using Norway as an example is simply not relevant or even comparable to america. First off all, norway has a national home defense, the members off these forces are allowed to keep guns. but the fact is that later years showed several shooting accidents with these weapons, and even stricter control was actually imposed. the weapons first off all has to be locked in at at all times, all weapons are registered, and all personell are checked. second off all, norway has a long hunting tradition, most weapons are therefore single shot rifles and such, not semi automatics and pistols which are allowed to buy in america. its the same with switzerland, they also have a national militia who are allowed to keep guns locked up after their service is over. u cant draw a comparison between that and being able to go out on the street and buy a semi automatic for a regular citizen.

and also, in regard to you saying that if guns are banned only law abiding citizens will suffer. that argument does not really hold water. found this on a site.

"Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns."

fact is, its not like you portray it, that it is impossible to prevent criminals from getting hold of guns. by decreasing the flow of guns in the country across the whole line ure getting to the criminals too.

Yes, lets give everybody a nuclear weapon, they may suddenly snap and use it . Quit using strawman arguments, it makes you look bad and is impossible to take you seriously. You don't cite any statistics whatsoever, and you completely ignore statistics and logic, and instead, reduce to your empty rhetoric "guns are bans, if we banned them people would be safe." It's absolutely impossible to debate when you keep ignoring anything that doesn't support your simplistic views.

I will not tone down freedom talk, as one of the purposes of the government is to protect freedom (well, it used to be and should be). Learn to take care of yourself.

the point of the nuclear weapons commment was simply to add alittle spice to the debate, stop taking everything i say seriously. but where do u draw the line though? where do u say that the individuals freedom must suffer for the best of society? should it be allowed for a regular citizen to own a tank or maybe an apache helicopter? cuz i mean, if criminals could get hold of a tank, then regular citizens should also be allowed to own a tank too right?

and why do u say i only use empty rhetoric? u are the one constantly trying to insult me and attack me personally. not that i care though, because u are the one who looks bad when u resort to calling ur opponent an idiot just because u disagree

No I'm not you fucktard. Look at America now, where guns are legal, does every citizen carry around a gun? Fuck no. How many do, like what, 5%? So quit using your bullshit extreme examples of "every person" walking around with a gun, it won't happen. When did I ever once say, that lets GIVE them a gun?? The difference is, it's their right to have one.

again with the name calling, fucktard, idiot, anything more u would like to add?


back to the debate. No every citizen does not carry a gun, u say 5%, i dunno about that. with 250 million handguns in a country with 300 million citizens i would think its alot more. but even excluding that, isnt that what u want? ur kinda loosing ground when u argue that everyone should have the right to have a gun, cuz, not everyone will carry them around anyway. isnt that the utopia? a society where everyone carry arms? because thats what u might end up with. ok so ur not giving them a gun, but ur protecting their right to have one, and if u take this philosophy to the extreme then u will, in the end have a society where its the norm that everyone carry arms. do u honestly think thats gonna be a good society to live in?

Notice, you also once again, selectively ignored examples of a school shooting being stopped at 2 murders, instead of 20+, because people had guns. Fuck, stop ignoring points, it's impossible to debate when you do this.

so where do u stop? u talk as if more guns is the solution to these problems. what about hospitals, kindergardens and restaurants? i mean, someone could snap there too, why not arm employees there too. hell, it was an example of a 6 year old boy killing a girl with a gun he brought from home. maybe if the girl had been armed the outcome of the situation would be better huh? dont u see what a fallacy ur whole argument is. it leads absolutely nowhere. all it does is create a more unstable, unsafe society. u can drag up a few examples like these all day long about one particular case where a gun was used to stop the attacker. so what? in other countries u dont have these school massacres, so why even talk about arming students. its only in america where ur logic is so backwards its sickening.

So what would you rather in this situation? Going back to the original house break in example, would you feel safer doing absolutely nothing, because ? Or, would you feel safer knowing you could defend yourself, and your peers?

not very relevant, we are talking in a broader perspective, about what is best for the society. but to answer your question, i feel safer right now, living in a society where i know my neighbour does not have a uzi hidden under his bed.

Once again, you ignore every statistic I cite, and resort to simplistic views on how great it would be to have a society without guns (which is impossible) so this is pointless. More murders of ANY nature happen in America.

i dont ignore ur statistics, but cmon, u can find statistics of everything, tons of statistics shows the correlation between gun availability and murder rates too, and as we know the NRA are very powerful and are constantly trying to make a case for guns not being a major reason for all the murders in america.

and im not talking about having a society without guns. Guns used for hunting with a real backed up lisense and regularly checked and locked up is not what we are talking about here.

and yeah more murders of any nature do happends in america, but again the difference between the US and other western countries is so great that u can not denie that gun availability has something to do with it. guns increase the feasability of murders. its not easy killing another human being with other kinds of weapons, the rate of fatality drops dramatically when u look at other countries where blunt weapons or knifes are the more widespread murder weapons. today 70% or around 14000 of all the murders in america are carried out by guns. can u really denie that alot of these deaths could have been avoided with a stricter gun policy?

 

[Tech]

can u really denie that alot of these deaths could have been avoided with a stricter gun policy?

it's too late for strict gun laws. there are too many floating around this country.

bad people will get a weapon whether they are legal or not. so we outta let the honest people protect themselves as best as we can.

 

[Duality]

^ sad but true.

this phrase doesn't lie: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns

 

[Hypocrisy86]

^ very true....
not unless you can build a homemade Cannon.

 

[Flex]

With a gun, i would be able to confront the criminal true, in that confrontation alot of scenarios could happend:

A)I would kill the criminal, no harm to me or my family, i may get problems later on in life, because the criminal infact maybe never had the intentions of killing me. is it really worth killing someone over material property?

Get over it. I would feel proud knowing that I may have saved my family's lives. No possible way I would feel bad unless the intruder was a young kid.

B) I end up getting injured or killed myself in the confrontation either because of inability to handle the gun or because the armed criminal returns fire.

Inability to handle the gun? That's your fault for having a gun and not learning how to use it.

C) I end up wounding or killing family members in the house.

Nice job noob. Again, learn how to shoot if you own a gun; problem solved.

 

[Flex]

With a gun, i would be able to confront the criminal true, in that confrontation alot of scenarios could happend:

A)I would kill the criminal, no harm to me or my family, i may get problems later on in life, because the criminal infact maybe never had the intentions of killing me. is it really worth killing someone over material property?

Get over it. I would feel proud knowing that I may have saved my family's lives. No possible way I would feel bad unless the intruder was a young kid.

B) I end up getting injured or killed myself in the confrontation either because of inability to handle the gun or because the armed criminal returns fire.

Inability to handle the gun? That's your fault for having a gun and not learning how to use it.

C) I end up wounding or killing family members in the house.

Nice job noob. Again, learn how to shoot if you own a gun; problem solved.


You always argue like every human being is a psycho or a good person that is incapable of taking care of himself.

 

[Bulkboy]

it's too late for strict gun laws. there are too many floating around this country.

this comment make it sound like you would impose gun laws if u knew there was a way to get hold of them all? would u support it if there was a way to collect them all?

bad people will get a weapon whether they are legal or not. so we outta let the honest people protect themselves as best as we can.

this notion is quite simply wrong. read this, from the FBI:

"Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns."


in other words, limiting the access to firearms will indeed make it harder for criminals to obatin guns, which u can clearly see in other countries that does not have gun laws like america. in these countries murders are more often committed with blunt weapons or knifes, and the fatality rate immediately drops dramatically. 70% of the murders in america however are committed with firearms and it clearly shows the correlation between gun laws and murder rates.

 

[Bulkboy]

ok flex, u guys can get hung up in that part of my post as much as u want. my main point remains and that is that a society is overally alot safer without a ton of weapons flowing around in the hands of the general population.

 

[Flex]

It doesn't matter if we're safer or not, that's a debate that could never be solved. Fact of the matter is, we have a right to protect ourselves.

 

[Tech]

Of course weapons make our world more dangerous and are responsible for so many needless deaths. If we could go back in time and prevent guns and bombs from ever being invented, I'd be all for it.

The reality is, guns are here to stay. So you can either accept it or fight a losing battle by trying to ban them. (kinda like the drug war in the US)