However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.
I could point to the War on Drugs and the increase in availability and potency of illicit narcotics such as heroin in the past 30 years to effectively counter your argument. Besides, since a great deal of guns are imported (Beretta is Italian, IMI is Israeli, and Springfield Armory uses parts from Brazil), the reality is that guns could still be smuggled into the U.S. or any other country. Besides, guns can be custom made by those with the right equipment. They're not the most complicated devices in the world.
I meant if you try to protect yourself with a gun, the person trying to attack you might be able to take your gun from you and use it against you. Also, there are still a lot of idiots out there who don't make their guns unaccessible to their children. Even if that's illegal, it doesn't mean that won't happen. The police usually won't find out until it's too late and someone's gotten hurt. What we need in the US is more gun control at the very least.
Yes, there is always that problem when defending yourself. If someone attacks me and I throw a punch, they may catch and break my arm. If I run, they could trip me. For every action, there is an effective counter. Does that mean you surrender without any type of resistance? I wouldn't, personally.
Personally, I find it somewhat amusing (forgive me) that you argue for gun control, and in the same paragraph admit that gun laws pertaining to keeping firearms out of the reach of minors are basically ineffective. Wouldn't the obvious solution be education? Government bodies have shown themselves to be poor at regulating much of anything (border security, the war on drugs, fiscal spending, etc.), I wouldn't want them to try and juggle another ball when they're already dropping all the others.
Try to look at it with a bigger picture. People are more likely to become murderers if they have the facilities to do it.
That's an ignorant statement, in my honest opinion. Having the facilities to perform an action doesn't necessarily mean one would do it. I own 5 guns, as previously mentioned, and have never shot any living thing. I don't plan on it, and never want to. Just as I won't rape my girlfriend when she's unconscious, or step on my cat's head to kill him in his sleep. Having the means to do something is only one part, the other being the motive. Motive, in all honesty, is the greater of the two. I could beat someone to death with my bare hands if so driven to that point, as could anyone else.
A gun makes it easy. Too easy. The act of killing another human--or yourself--becomes a spur of the moment thing in the wrong hands. Household chemicals, over the counter drugs, et cetera, change the act to premeditated but also take time and effort, and the moment passes more often than not.
I disagree. From a scientific standpoint, all methods of killing are equal when applied equally. If I put a 9mm hole in someone's heart, it will have the same effect as a bladed weapon being stabbing into the same region or a jarring enough blow to the torso to cause sudden arrhythmia death syndrome: Death. If I punch someone and break their Hyoid bone, they will die likewise. Besides, if one is prone to fits of violence, could you not reason that (gun or no) they will inflict harm on another person?
Also, I think many people here are not really familiar with the science of forensics. Gunshot wounds are not automatically fatal, more often than not even a trained marksman will not achieve a fatal shot. Are they still a deadly weapon? Of course, but it's not like a video game where one bullet = one kill.
A single person can't do much (or anything) against a gang like that, but if all decent people were armed and determined to pay back on those bastards, then there might be a difference. Enough vigilantes can pay back on those scum, if they are united and determined.
Eh, you've gotta be careful with that kind of mentality. Historically, most gangs were actually founded with that viewpoint in mind. Truthfully, the ideal would be that (with all citizens being armed and equal) no one would be powerless and easily able to be exploited.
I propose it be legal to buy weapons, and own weapons, but not to have them on your person or in public(except firing ranges and designated hunting areas). Now you may ask yourself, how can you purchase weapons if you can't carry weapons, well you could have it sent to your home.
Again, you run into the stumbling block of "criminals don't respect the law". If only those who were legally licensed to carry guns carried them, firearms related crime would be a lot lower, but it's not the case. As for having firearms sent to your home, that's a violation of federal law in the United States as you must have a federally issued license to receive firearms directly.
So during peacetime, people that shouldnt be using guns in public will get in trouble. And gun nuts will still get to enjoy owning guns.
"People that shouldn't be using guns in public," as you put it, exist now. And there are laws that make it illegal for them to do so. You're missing a key part of your equation: enforcement. Anyone can sign a law into being, however without the enforcement part of the equation, it's a waste of time.
Now, if you wanted to make a totalitarian government, you could do that, but I wouldn't want to live under such a body.
----
Of those who want gun control/bans, I have to ask:
How much do you
really know about guns? Their mechanical function? Statistics of legally owned guns being used in crimes versus those acquired illegally? Self-defense vs. violent crimes? The science of ballistics? How firearms rank versus other causes of homocide?
Think about this. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Justice reports that according to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%I'm just saying, I can give you statistics and reasoning for why I believe guns should be available to lawful citizens. All I can really see from the other side is conjecture and opinion without any concrete support. Most of them say "We need more gun control!" but when you ask why, all they can say is that guns cause crime. To me, that's ignorant. Get rid of guns, and those who wish to do violence onto others will simply find another method. Meanwhile, lawful owners (the only ones impacted by such bans/regulations) will be the ones you hurt.
-Corey
