Originally Posted by ynvaser
Or perhaps not give civilians any guns! It's hard to shoot people without one. Making them illegal to possess makes it harder to have illegal (unregistered, whatever) guns in circulation as well. If all guns are illegal for civilian possession, the issue is quite straightforward to handle. Exception could be hunting rifles, which would require a hunting license (those are not that easy to get where i'm from).
I see you are from Hungary. After doing a bit of reading, I understand that it is very hard to acquire a firearm, and even then, the type of gun you may possess is severely restricted. Incidentally, you also seem to have a low crime rate. Bravo. Really, congrats. It's hard to do in this day and age. However, because you come from a place where gun control is the norm, it's hard to understand an alternate stance, especially when what you've been living with has worked so well. My go-to rebuttal for advocating gun control is Switzerland. Every able man is required to complete basic training in the military, and he can keep his standard issue rifle after he's done(after a license has been obtained). As of 2001, there were some 420,000 military rifles being stored in homes, plus another 320,000 guns that were not part of military equipment. A few other types of guns that the article did not mention specifically brings the total of household weapons to somewhere around 1.2 million. The percentage of households with guns is less than that in the US, but this is largely due to the fact that some people choose to have their rifle stored in a military armory instead of their home.
The amount of firearm homicides in Sweden per 100,000 is .70.
Just for comparison, the amount of firearm homicides in the US per 100,000 is 7.1(ish).
So having a lot of guns doesn't mean that crime is inevitably high. It just means that in countries that do have high crime and gun ownership rates, something is wrong that's not related to the guns.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Originally Posted by KingJimmyX
Lol i hope your joking
I fear that your hopefulness may have been sorely misplaced. Also, remember that this is the discussion sub-forum for discussing things rather than just expressing reserved optimism at the degree of comic irony the other posters intended their arguments to contain. You are not helping the discussion or impressing anyone. Could you please at least try to accommodate your next quip of groundless smug rhetoric with some sort of actual argument or opinion on the topic of discussion?
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by ynvaser
Or perhaps not give civilians any guns! It's hard to shoot people without one. Making them illegal to possess makes it harder to have illegal (unregistered, whatever) guns in circulation as well. If all guns are illegal for civilian possession, the issue is quite straightforward to handle. Exception could be hunting rifles, which would require a hunting license (those are not that easy to get where i'm from).
People shoot guns for sport. And, another thing. If someone has the will to shoot somebody, then they have the will to go find a gun. Regardless of any restrictions on guns, there will always be a way to obtain one. Simply removing them isn't a solution, and it never will be. And, I'd rather have a firearm in my hand against another man who has a firearm in his hand than have nothing in my hands and he has a firearm pointed at my skull, ready to fire. Just sayin'.
Valterain1 was defeated by hermaphrodite on Oct 17, 2015.
^If all firearms were illegal, it'd be hard to acquire one. If somehow a criminal could acquire one (without running into an undercover cop pretending to be an arms dealer) a routine check would most likely filter 90% of those who managed to get one. What you have left is people not having guns 99% of the time and no shootings whatsoever. It's the only solution for gun related violence.
You are a civilian, it's not your business to get into firefights. If you arm everybody, the likelihood of you having a gun pointed at your head is significantly higher than if nobody was allowed to carry a gun in the first place.
Also, that avatar makes it hard to take you seriously.
What you all keep forgetting is that the police needs an edge over the general population. If everyone has guns, then the police loses that edge and violence becomes the norm. Since you can't have every country sheriff drive around with a tank (not to mention it'd be expensive and impractical) the logical step would be disarming the population. And that won't happen in the US, not because the crazy half of the population wouldn't like it, but because a sizable percent of your GDP comes from arms dealing and manufacturing.
I'd rather have a firearm in my hand against another man who has a firearm in his hand than have nothing in my hands and he has a firearm pointed at my skull, ready to fire. Just sayin'.
You are a civilian, it's not your business to get into firefights. If you arm everybody, the likelihood of you having a gun pointed at your head is significantly higher than if nobody was allowed to carry a gun in the first place.
Also, that avatar makes it hard to take you seriously.
What you all keep forgetting is that the police needs an edge over the general population. If everyone has guns, then the police loses that edge and violence becomes the norm. Since you can't have every country sheriff drive around with a tank (not to mention it'd be expensive and impractical) the logical step would be disarming the population. And that won't happen in the US, not because the crazy half of the population wouldn't like it, but because a sizable percent of your GDP comes from arms dealing and manufacturing.
Last edited by ynvaser; Jan 31, 2015 at 11:59 PM.
