DeletedUser
People use guns to defend themselves of others use guns to attack them. What if we ban guns. Then no would attack the people and no one would need to defend themselves.
Uuumm, you don't need a gun to attack someone, you can kill someone with a spoon if you know what you're doing.
People use guns to defend themselves of others use guns to attack them. What if we ban guns. Then no would attack the people and no one would need to defend themselves.
Uuumm, you don't need a gun to attack someone, you can kill someone with a spoon if you know what you're doing.
If you read the whole thread, you would see already pointed out that there are ways to obtain a gun illegally and there are many such weapons on the streets today. Imposing gun control will disarm honest owners, not those who wish to do harm.
Legislation will not make people more or less violent, which is a frame of mind or being, but keeping them away from guns will tend to make that violence less lethal.
The only place I've visited where there seemed absolutely no gun control was Afghanistan in the early 80's. Guys walked around with carbines, even carried them on buses and no one batted an eyelid.
Fifteen years later they were living under the Taleban. So when I hear people claiming that gun ownership is an antidote to oppressive government I just smile and keep on walking.
Eli Makepeace said:But seriously, is that "Uuumm...." at the beginning of both your posts the sound of your brain struggling to engage?
Guns don't kill people, physics kills people.
So, how about if we outlaw physics? I'm sure the zombies wouldn't object.
I already pointed out one fallacy in this claim, which you are now making for the third time. I didn't pursue it because you didn't understand it the first time.If you read the whole thread, you would see already pointed out that there are ways to obtain a gun illegally and there are many such weapons on the streets today. Imposing gun control will disarm honest owners, not those who wish to do harm.
If you're going to try to "correct" people, at least get your facts right.By the way: it's "Taliban"
If you're going to try to "correct" people, at least get your facts right.
"Taliban" and "taleban" are both accepted transliterations, but I had to use one or the other, right?
No you don't. But you will think twice knowing that the other person has a gun to defend himself
The other thing I would ask is how many of these people who buy guns for "protection" actually know how to use it and are willing to do so?
Well no because all you've got there is an arms race, you will not deter a professional criminal from robbing your house with the thought that "The owner may have a gun" after all robbing peoples houses is his chosen career. All it means is that he is going to make sure that he's tooled up for when he robs your house and also because he suspects you have a gun he is going to make sure that he has a bigger gun than you.
The other thing I would ask is how many of these people who buy guns for "protection" actually know how to use it and are willing to do so?
I already pointed out one fallacy in this claim, which you are now making for the third time. I didn't pursue it because you didn't understand it the first time.
Here's another one: you might just as well say that speed limits only hurt the law-respecting driver as bad drivers will speed come-what-may. In fact, it seems to work for just about any law. But of course laws do actually affect criminal behaviour. That's why we have them.
Well no because all you've got there is an arms race, you will not deter a professional criminal from robbing your house with the thought that "The owner may have a gun" after all robbing peoples houses is his chosen career. All it means is that he is going to make sure that he's tooled up for when he robs your house and also because he suspects you have a gun he is going to make sure that he has a bigger gun than you.
The other thing I would ask is how many of these people who buy guns for "protection" actually know how to use it and are willing to do so?
As for your question: I'd say the majority do. I don't think there are many people who'd buy a new car to keep it in the garage and never drive it. It is the same with guns. If you have no interest in them, you probably will rather get an alarm system than a gun. If you are interested in owning a gun, you wanna have some fun with it too. Also, if you get a CCW you have to know how to use it and practice
Petty criminals do think twice.
Using the UK as a model of gun control is flawed for countries like the US, since guns are MUCH easier to get in a country the size of the US, with 2 equally large countries bordering it.
Poor logic has let you down again. Every restriction is a ban of some kind - namely the activity that falls within the restriction. Also, the gun control argument is only about restriction, not banning, as nobody seriously thinks that members of the armed forces, presidential guards, police officers attending certain crime scenes etc. should not have firearms.There's a difference between speed limit and a ban on driving all together. Your analogy is flawed.