civilwarrocks said:
OK Temerit, it's obvious you like fact based reason & argument. I respect that. So let's look at the facts shall we. Please note the word exterminate is not meant to offend but rather to reveal the mindset of the governments listed below.
Let us not forget the word reason. In Germany... the vast majority of those Jews were not even from Germany, they were shipped into Poland, and Germany, the gun control laws in Germany hadn't effected them in the Eastern European countries they were in, they wouldn't have had a chance anyway, they did not know they were being taken to their deaths, they did not know what was planned for them.
Stalin.... yes he committed genocide. But would allowing the populace to have arms really stop the red army? The people of the USSR were loyal to Stalin. And after Stalin died in 1953 did they repeal gun control? Or did they leave it? If they left it did they mass murdering continue? Is your list full of examples of where gun control resulted in millions of lives lost or examples of where totalitarian dictatorships result in millions of lives lost?
Can you site an example of a democracy where the implementation of gun control lead to a rise in gun related violence?
I don't know where you are getting your data about Austrailia from, but here is a nice .pdf to read, yes it is by the former head of the coalition for gun control in Austrailia, but still a good lead.
And here is the official data for gun related crime in Australia from 1988 until 2000.
Australian Gun Control Data
civilwarrocks said:
The simple fact is that when citizens are armed they are safer.
I don't think any fact concerning this issue is that clean cut and simple, but I fail to see how this is true.. it is a very rare occasion that a gun saves a homeowner from a criminal, and I fail to see how guns can really be seen as the answer to fighting gun-related violence.
civilwarrocks said:
As for my saying it should not be regulated, the second ammendent states that The right of the poeple to keep & bear arms shall not be enfringed. This means that no license should be required for a citizen to draw on thier own rights.
I thought we were debating the concept of gun control itself, not its constitutionality. I know gun control won't be implemented in America anytime this century, there are too many conservative punks for that. The constitution can be amended though.
Thanks for the feedback about my quotes. Sometimes I hate debating... it makes you feel like such an ass. But then again, I'm doing this because I feel its important, I mean establishing gun control would save lives... I feel that it's my duty to those people to educate others concerning the issue. But then again, this is an issue where I really don't feel too strongly about. There are many other far more glaring problems with conservative ideology, especially the conservative ideology of today.
Master Ride said:
But no, guns should not be outlawed. Many people use them as defense. Say someone breaks into your house with a gun. If guns were not outlawed, then you could pull out your gun and defend yourself. However, they were outlawed and you obeyed the law, then you would left defenseless. Odds are if someone is in your house, they don't care if they break another law.
Dead you.
Outlawing guns would make it worse, not better.
Unfortunately both the facts and logic disagree with you, armed crime actually declined in Australia due to strict gun control laws. And if someone is to rob your house, you really think they would decide to murder you just because? I really don't think armed robberies are usually robbing domestic residencies. Criminals who are carrying weapons to coerce those they rob and are willing to murder are going to be robbing banks, and stores, not your average middle class home.
Jughead said:
Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?
Do people with guns kill people?