We Need To Be Protecting The Children From The Sex

[Ironside]

Speak for yourself, I cannot think of something more civilized than the right to carry guns.

One hallmark of civilization IMO is when the average person is offered a gun for self-defense would simply look at the gun oddly and then ask "Why?", and be sane about it.

That's funny. Especially considering that firearms are the great equalizer.

Aren't the strongmen the ones that outlaw the possession of weapons to secure their grip on power?

Linked with the answer above, if normal people don't need guns for self-defense, who would need it? Criminals and those who like showing off how cool/strong/tough they are (preferably after a few beers). Hardly the category of people you want to have guns.
Thus banning guns can be done by the goverment without it being a move to secure their grip on power.

To summarize this part of the gun debate. European and American gun philosophy is different. There, back on topic.

[Vladimir]

It's not philosophy, it's culture. And, like always, the anti-gun crowd uses emotion and hyperbole to make their point. Why would the average person own a firearm? You don't want to know because you've been told and don't want to believe it.


Oh...No, we have no functioning justice system. It's like Mad Max here. Criminals flaunt their AKs openly and gangs of motorcycle warriors rule the street.

[Fragony]

One hallmark of civilization IMO is when the average person is offered a gun for self-defense would simply look at the gun oddly and then ask "Why?", and be sane about it.

With what right do you deny something to someone, government can't deliver, but they love to deny things. They have the right idea these in yankland.

[AlexanderSextus]

Apparently in europe you guys must not have criminals, like the ones in the first post of this thread, whose sole intent is to harm, maim, and kill, without prejudice.

Sometimes, when the cops get to the scene, it is too late.

Even in countries that have "banned" guns entirely, people still get shot. It might be less, but it doesn't eliminate gun crime.

The fact of the matter is, as long as guns exist, there will be gun crime, so as far as i'm concerned, a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction is a far better deterrent than Disarmament.

[Subotan]

Seeing as how nobody seemed to notice, I repeat:

People packing heat are much more likely to die in the event that they are mugged, especially by someone with a gun.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-get-shot.html
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/11/2034

[Vladimir]

Great. We're back to playing the statistics game. The problem with recording the positive effects of firearm ownership is trying to record events that *don't* happen.

Oh, and I'd like to see the actual results of the study. The comments in the New Scientist article mention valid points.

[HoreTore]

Well you can all do as you please, but I'm very happy that guns are banned here.

Even for the cops.

And that, my friends, is what freedom and security is to me.

[rvg]

Well you can all do as you please, but I'm very happy that guns are banned here.

Even for the cops.

And that, my friends, is what freedom and security is to me.

how about criminals? Do they respect the ban on guns?

[Crazed Rabbit]

People packing heat are much more likely to die in the event that they are mugged, especialy by someone with a gun.

Not in the US. I believe they are less likely to be injured, actually.

PACKING heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far more likely to get shot than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

That is a truly moronic survey. Perhaps next they'll say that people who wear parachutes are more likely to die in ski diving accidents, and blame the parachutes.

Also, it's a survey of people who got shot, not of people who got mugged. It's likely in Philly that many criminals carry guns because they're more likely to get into gunfights with other criminals. They carry guns as a response to the hazards of their lifestyle, and them being shot is a symptom of their lifestyle, not of them carrying guns.

Yes, in Europe, we prefer the rule of law as opposed to the rule of the strong....

Oh, my. Guns, as was said, are the equalizers; they prevent the rule of the strong.

One hallmark of civilization IMO is when the average person is offered a gun for self-defense would simply look at the gun oddly and then ask "Why?", and be sane about it.

Why are people always confusing civilization with utopias?

And that, my friends, is what freedom and security is to me.

Freedom means being prohibited from owning something because the government thinks you might hurt somebody else with it?

CR

[Viking]

In america those people usually get shot by law-abiding gun owners.

Where were the police when this happened? Exactly. Get a gun.

Y'know, if the average person in the street was not expected to carry a gun, it'd do wonders. When this is something that is a serious possibility, on the other hand, you take precautions when you're going to do something bad; like getting a gun yourself.

Oh, my. Guns, as was said, are the equalizers; they prevent the rule of the strong.

He who caries a gun is stronger than he who doesn't. By the law, they have the same strength in theory.

Freedom means being prohibited from owning something because the government thinks you might hurt somebody else with it?

Guns are not banned. However, you cannot carry a loaded gun in public, or something like that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Though I am a strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, it has little to do with the OP. However, since such discussions more or less permanently derail a thread, this one is now concluded.

Thanks all!