If guns were made illegal, criminals would still obtain them through illegal methods. People would still be shot and killed. The only difference is, you can't shoot back. Guns are weapons, yes, but they are also tools. And a gun can't kill a man unless another one pulls the trigger, right? So no, guns aren't bad, but the men who use them for illegal purposes are.
Guns are to be used for protection. i myself am going to acquire a gun through legal methods when i am of age, because i oft find myself in, to say the least, bad situations.
also, if i'm about to get robbed, i don't feel like getting in a knife fight with some poor hungry bastard. i may hate him for trying to rob me, and i may be hellbent on beating the living shit out of him, but screw that. at least if someone tries to rob me with a knife i can scare them away with a gun and there won't be any problems.
i can scare them away with a gun and there won't be any problems.
And if they still brandish their knife what will you do? You will shoot, at which point you are no better than a murderer. I am not expert on American law because I am English, however, I do not think American law allows you to murder people, regardless of legal owning of a firearm. Where do you draw the line between murder and self defence?
You have to understand that just about anything in this world can kill you if you use it in some way. It's just easier to kill people with guns. If everything that could kill you was considered "bad", there wouldn't be very many "good" things left in this world of ours...
i can scare them away with a gun and there won't be any problems.
With the intention of harming I find a different matter. No one will attack someone with a can opener, expecting much harm to be inflicted. With a gun, you are going to intentionally harm or even kill someone/something. I class intentional killing as murder.
Guns influence killing. If you were laying in bed reading a book and you put it down and saw a criminal in your room, pointing a rifle at you, and you had a shotgun by your side, you would bloody well use it. If you had our can opener, you would dare not attack, and therefore have not murdered anyone.
Another thing, is without the publics liberty to obtain guns, then you could have stronger punishments against those whom owned guns.
You can't just let him, that's what self-defense is.
I do not disagree that you should act with self-defence, what I do disagree with is that you should react with guns. As I have said guns influence killing, I do not mind harm as a form of self-defence, but once you kill someone, regardless of circumstance, you have committed murder, in my books. At which point you are no better than a murderer.
With a gun, you are going to intentionally harm or even kill someone/something.
Alas, can the same not be true with a can opener?
Guns influence killing.
If we didn't have guns, people would be killing each other with swords and daggers. But they would still be influenced to kill.
If you had our can opener, you would dare not attack, and therefore have not murdered anyone.
Remember that can openers can kill too. In fact, it would be faster to throw the can opener at the criminal and give him a bad blow to the head than it would to grab your shotgun and shoot him. By the time you've aimed your gun at him, you'll be sitting there, all still and dead.
Another thing, is without the publics liberty to obtain guns, then you could have stronger punishments against those whom owned guns.
So you're saying that if guns were to be legalized, people wouldn't be punished if they used them for their designed purposes? It makes sense, but it is also rather flawed...
I do not mind harm as a form of self-defence, but once you kill someone, regardless of circumstance, you have committed murder, in my books.
I agree with you. But if you don't react with a gun, then what do you react with? You need some sort of weapon, or even combat training, and any weapon is likely to kill the assailant.
Harm yes, but by the time you have killed someone with a can opener you're probably owning a chest of lead and metal. Harming is what I see as self-defense, stopping them from harming you, by harming them. Killing someone is like him shooting you.
If we didn't have guns, people would be killing each other with swords and daggers. But they would still be influenced to kill.
In England we do not own swords or dagger either. If we were murdered the murderer would have a gun, yet we do not fight back with a steel longsword. We are not influence to kill if the law says these items are prohibited.
Remember that can openers can kill too. In fact, it would be faster to throw the can opener at the criminal and give him a bad blow to the head than it would to grab your shotgun and shoot him. By the time you've aimed your gun at him, you'll be sitting there, all still and dead.
The blow to the head is great! Harming is self defense. I guess we cannot justify that a can opener can kill. :/ If I got my shotgun and blew his head off, I have dittoed the actions he would have committed. His actions were murder, what were yours?
So you're saying that if guns were to be legalized, people wouldn't be punished if they used them for their designed purposes? It makes sense, but it is also rather flawed...
I did not understand that, I am just a kid. >.>
What I am trying to say, is make it illegal for anyone to obtain gun, and then those whom do can be punished more severely, because then whatever the criminal was punished for cannot be reflected in what the public do: own a gun.
I agree with you. But if you don't react with a gun, then what do you react with? You need some sort of weapon, or even combat training, and any weapon is likely to kill the assailant.
If you own any weapon and you kill the assailant you have only copied what they would have done: murder. Was it legal? Our points contradict so much that I do not think we will reach an agreement on whether when one takes place in that scenario whether it will be legal or not.
