In favor of gun control?

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 12:17 AM JillLars said this in Post #35 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674373#post674373)

Here's the problem, we are not in Japan or Korea where they already have strict gun laws. We are in the United States where criminals already have the means to get access to unregistered firearms at the drop of a hat. It is very easy to do. It would be very hard to reverse the fact that criminals have easy access to things that are illegal...maybe we should be cracking down on them, and those that they get their guns from rather than adding more paperwork when hunters go to purchase a gun at wal-mart.

I agree that it's an impractical solution right now.

But comparing gun violence statistics between the U.S. and other nations... I can't help butwonder what things would look like if this proliferation of firearms never happened.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 12:20 AM aaron said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674380#post674380)

Well first off this isn't the forum for this but I will put my 2 cents worth in. The criminals already get many many weapons that are illegal. The law doesn't stop them. If they cared about the law than they wouldn't commit any crimes to begin with. They do not have a brain that reasons like everyone else. Why do you think there marijiuana, cocaine, and all of the other drugs. There are plenty of laws against it yet they continue to get them and use it. The law doesn't stop them; nor will any law against guns. Also, suppose that they do not get ahold of any guns. Then what will they use? They will go to knives and whatever else they can find.

Aaron

True, criminals will find ways to obtain illegal firearms. But the point is, will as many criminals find them? This is why I was wondering if there's any studies that actually shows how easy or difficult it is to obtain firearms in places like Japan or Korea.

And sure, if criminals can't get a gun, then may fall back on another weapon or a knife or bat or whatever. But let me ask you, what would you rather face? A knife wielding criminal or a gun wielding one?

 

[aaron]

a

 

[Ryder]

Aaoron touches on a good point (that's probably already been made somewhere),

Guns level the playing field too. An old woman can't use a baseball bat to ward off a young male thug with a knife (heck she won't even make him think twice). But if she had a gun (even if he did too) then he has to think twice, muscle & youth will no longer pull his but outa this one and he might really be intimidated. So it's alittle easier to dismiss guns&selfdefense if your not elderly or weak.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:25 AM aaron said this in Post #43 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674755#post674755)

Maybe as many criminals will not find them. But the ones that do would be more dangerous. We wouldn't be able to protect ourselves.

Let me ask you something: Have you ever been victimized by a person wielding a gun?

I would rather face one with me owning a gun.

Nice dodge. But still, even if you own a gun, there's no guarentee that you'll have an opportunity to use it. Unless, of course, you carry in around with you, loaded, 24/7. Which is, imho, a scary concept.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:26 AM Ryder said this in Post #44 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674809#post674809)

Aaoron touches on a good point (that's probably already been made somewhere),

Guns level the playing field too. An old woman can't use a baseball bat to ward off a young male thug with a knife (heck she won't even make him think twice). But if she had a gun (even if he did too) then he has to think twice, muscle & youth will no longer pull his but outa this one and he might really be intimidated. So it's alittle easier to dismiss guns&selfdefense if your not elderly or weak.

That's a valid point. However, again, it calls into question the ability of the person to utilize their gun if the opportunity arose.

 

[Gabriel]

Today at 01:07 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #45 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675055#post675055)




Nice dodge. But still, even if you own a gun, there's no guarentee that you'll have an opportunity to use it. Unless, of course, you carry in around with you, loaded, 24/7. Which is, imho, a scary concept.

Why is that a scary concept? People with Concealed Carry Permits make up less than 1% of gun crime statistics.

In order to receive a Carry Permit, you are required to take an extensive gun safety course which includes legal points of when and when not to use deadly force. You then are required to send no less than 50 rounds downrange under your instructors observation in order to prove yourself proficient.

 

[pace]

Today at 03:25 PM aaron said this in Post #43

Maybe as many criminals will not find them. But the ones that do would be more dangerous. We wouldn't be able to protect ourselves.

Aaron

That's why we have a police force and government dealing with heavier issues.

 

[Ryder]

Today at 03:03 PM pace said this in Post #48

That's why we have a police force and government dealing with heavier issues.

Yeah, that works if you live next door to the police department... but for the rest of us this isn't smallville, and cops take time to get out to you, sometimes alot of time... sometimes too long.

So you hold off jack-the-ripper with a cheese grater, I'm using a gun !

 

[waterwizard]

Today at 05:16 AM pace said this in Post #38

 
Right, so we don't give em guns !

It doesn't matter if we want to "give 'em guns" or not, if they want one bad enough, they'll go out and get one.  No gun law ever passed will stop them.

 

[waterwizard]

Today at 08:20 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #42 

  But let me ask you, what would you rather face? A knife wielding criminal or a gun wielding one?

What would a criminal rather face, an unarmed victim or someone who happens to be carrying a firearm?

 

[Beckijhn]

Both my brothers are police officers. My kid brother always gives me gun stuff for my birthday. One year my hubby got me a 9mm (because I travel so much) so my brother got me a briefcase/guncase to use.

My brothers both know what they are up against (time, criminals, etc) and would much rather be cleaning up the mess left by a law abiding citizen portecting himself than a mess left by a criminal attacking a law abiding citizen.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 04:30 PM waterwizard said this in Post #51 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675450#post675450)

What would a criminal rather face, an unarmed victim or someone who happens to be carrying a firearm?

Obviously an unarmed victim. But, how would a criminal act towards someone they think might be possibly armed? Is it not reasonable to assume that a criminal may act more aggressively towards someone they think is armed, in an effort to prevent their victim from ever having a chance of wielding their gun?

 

[waterwizard]

Today at 04:01 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #53

Obviously an unarmed victim. But, how would a criminal act towards someone they think might be possibly armed? Is it not reasonable to assume that a criminal may act more aggressively towards someone they think is armed, in an effort to prevent their victim from ever having a chance of wielding their gun?

I think it would be more reasonable to assume if a criminal thinks he has a chance of getting shot, he would avoid that person and look for someone who is obviously unarmed.

Would you charge a person you think might be packing heat?

 

[racing_girl]

i would never ever shoot anyone or anything!! i love people, animals, and life to much

 

[racing_girl]

i would never ever shoot anyone or anything!! i love people, animals, and life to much

 

[minniemouse]

Yesterday at 01:34 PM Gabriel said this in Post #26

The point that we who don't want to lose our freedoms to others would like to make is a simple one. you can take out the word "gun" and replace it with all of the following words, "swimming pool, automobile, chainsaw, ice pick, alcohol, cigarette, cigarette lighter...." and your statement is just as relevant. The fact is that more people protect themselves or their families each year with a handgun than the number of people who are injured by them in an "accident".

I agree that it is a shame that we have to consider taking away personal freedoms to protect those who are careless with that freedom.  While you have a good point regarding the lack of care in the use of other things in this society many of those things have rules and regulations over them as well.  Alcohol purchase has an age limit, and if you drink too much you are not allowed to drive.  Swimming pools require proper fencing by law.  I could go on, but you get the point.  I am not saying that guns should be outlawed, by any means, but some laws to keep things in check is not unreasonable.  There are limitations and a point when those laws could go over the line of what is reasonable.  In my opinion we haven't reached that point yet. 

 

[JillLars]

Yesterday at 04:01 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #53

Obviously an unarmed victim. But, how would a criminal act towards someone they think might be possibly armed? Is it not reasonable to assume that a criminal may act more aggressively towards someone they think is armed, in an effort to prevent their victim from ever having a chance of wielding their gun?

You know pete, you bring up a very good point here.  I don't want to sound like I'm changing my opinion but I have an interesting story.  I am a security guard (for a company that my dad manages), it is unarmed security.  I asked my Dad once why they don't do armed security and he explained to me that armed security is more dangerous than unarmed security.  Here is the example he gave me, a bank robber goes into a bank.  He can probably get away clean unless the guard is armed, so who's the first person he shoots, the guard.  He'll tell the rest of the people to get on the floor or whatever but will usually use force with the one person who he thinks can harm him...if the guard is unarmed they will usually leave them to live.  I don't have the stats to back it but my Dad has been in the security business for 20 some years, so I don't doubt him. 

 

[Martin]

I've never handled a gun and wouldn't want to..... I wish it was the same for everyone, but that's wishful thinking.

In the UK the number of people killed by firearms has dramatically increased in recent years (I can't quote numbers, I'm afraid..). The strange thing is that most of those deaths are at the hands of police officers!

The British police are not regularly armed, but each police force has a group of specialist trained firearms officers who attend incidents where firearms are thought to be involved. The statistics show that more deaths occur at the hands of police officers than criminals and the government is undertaking a review to restrict the use of firearms by police forces. The theory is that there is a tendancy for police officers to give all the required legal warnings and having done so - shoot.

We cannot keep the guns out of the hands of those criminals who really want to get hold of a gun, but we can do what we can to make it more difficult. I would like to see the availability of guns made harder. In this country, I would either close down all gun shops or put them under government control.

Just because criminals have guns, to me, doesn't mean that everyone should just "tool up". That makes us as bad as the criminal, and I don't care what anyone says - a gun is an offensive weapon not a defensive one.

On the issue of personal freedom... We are not free to do anything we want - we cannpt murder someone, rape someone, steal from anyone etc.. These are restrictions on personal freedom. The issue concerns whether a "personal freedom" is, on balance, more detrimental to human kind or the community than to the individual. Where the effect is on balance detrimental to the community at large, then there needs to be restriction on such "freedoms".

From my observations and experiences in the UK, I would side with those that promote greater gun control. You will never stop gun crime, but you should do all you can to mitigate against it occuring - and if that means law-abiding people being unable to purchase guns, then so be it.

Would Jesus buy a gun.....?

 

[pace]

Well spoken Martin.

Yesterday at 12:42 PM JillLars said this in Post #40

and I do understand that coffee is a lot less dangerous than guns, but its an analogy just because some people don't know how to handle hot coffee should we ban it from everyone. You're just don't give them guns attitude makes sense, its just a matter of implementing a policy that tells certain people they are too idiotic to own a gun or drink coffee...good luck.

I like the way you're argumenting too But let me put it to the other direction:

A-bombs. Some Countries has A-bombs, and some Countries we might not trust that much has it too. But then let's say some rougue Countries get it and we don't have it. What do we do ? Yes, we get ourself A-bombs too. If they attack, at least we have something to react with! 

According to you and waterwizard, there's not much hope controlling things anyway.

Of course many things has been controlled fo centuries, we control things all the time, and it 'helps'.. If we're willing to put strength, teachings, and caretaking in it.